Rural Payments Agency

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress the Rural Payments Agency made in 2004 to ensure payments were made within the required timescale.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Rural Payments Agency has succeeded in meeting all its payment targets for valid IACS and non-IACS claims for 2004–05. Final balance payments for 2004 bovine schemes are due to be made by 30 June 2005, which has always been the deadline. As of 9 June, 90.56 per cent of balance payments for the 2004 bovine schemes had been made.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is he confident that the agency will be able to cope with the changes under the CAP reforms which will put additional pressures on the agency? Farmers are already facing payment delays. As he will be aware, payments are due to be made by next February—they were due to be made by December, so the date has already slipped—but there is a suggestion that some payments will be made as late as next June.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am well aware of the point that the noble Baroness raises. There is a lot of concern among farmers about their payments for this year. She is right to say that this is a new scheme of huge importance which, in relation to subsidy, is widely supported both politically and by the farmers' union. I have no doubt that there will be some anxious moments, but it is part of my job, and the job of the Rural Payments Agency in particular, to make sure that farmers are paid properly and on time.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I understand that in Wales payments will be made by December. Why is there going to be a delay until February in England? Can the Minister say whether the number of civil servants in the Rural Payments Agency has increased between 2002 and 2004?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not responsible for what happens in Wales in this regard, but I suspect that the reason may be that, although there are many farmers in Wales, there are more in England. Consequently there are more applications in England for the single payment scheme. I shall have to write to the noble Lord with the figures on staff in the Rural Payments Agency.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, as the House is a little quiet this morning, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the competence of the IT system. It has been suggested that the delay is due to the system not being able to cope, a suggestion reflected in the question from the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. As I am being allowed a second question today, I should like to know whether the system is up and running and able to cope with the enormous number of claims that will be coming in.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the first two key IT developments—a land register and a customer register—have been delivered. However, there have been EU policy changes to the single payment scheme as late as December 2004. Consequently, the IT system for administering the single payment scheme has had to be modified. Frankly, that has led to later-than-planned delivery and availability of the subsequent systems. Nevertheless, we believe that the planned delivery dates provide a sufficient margin to process and pay valid applications by the projected payment date of February 2006. The noble Baroness says that that date has been put back. Across Europe, there is a window between December 2005 and May 2006 for these payments to be made. We are due to pay in February 2006.

Elections: All-postal Pilots

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have ruled out holding any all-postal or other experimental voting pilots at the council elections in May 2006.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have not closed the door on all-postal voting, but have no current plans to roll it out as the default position. All-postal pilots are well received in some local authorities and are appropriate in certain elections. The Secretary of State is obliged by law to consider any application from a local authority to pilot innovative voting methods. We will consider applications on a case-by-case basis.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her somewhat disappointing Answer. She seems to be sitting on the fence. By their very nature, pilots are set up as experiments. We have had freestanding local authority pilots in annual elections for authorities and by-elections and a large number of pilots in the elections that took place in June last year on the same day as the European elections. About 100 pilots must have taken place. Given the strong advice from the Electoral Commission in its report Securing the Vote that there should not be further compulsory postal voting, what is there to learn from more pilots?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sitting on the fence. I am giving noble Lords the benefit of my wisdom on this matter. I am surprised that the noble Lord does not see that there is much more to be looked at. He is right that the Electoral Commission has been clear about what it thinks, but it has also changed its mind. In 2003, it took a different view on all-postal vote pilots.
	It is important that, if we are invited to do so by local authorities which are considering a pilot, we look at some of the new issues that we put forward in our consultation paper; for example, those on security. We can test different ways of approaching it—as the noble Lord will know, there are different views about it—and pilots are an opportunity for us to do that.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that if there is a clash between voting convenience and voting fraud, the Government will always come down against voting fraud?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government would, of course, come down against voting fraud. Voting convenience is an integral part of ensuring that our democracy works as effectively as it can. Noble Lords will have heard me say previously that it is important to consider different ways of voting to ensure that we do not make it difficult for people to exercise their democratic rights.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, the Question is about elections for councils in May 2006. Avid readers of the Labour Party manifesto will have spotted that there is a suggestion that annual elections will be abolished and replaced by all-out elections that will take place every four years. Will the Minister inform the House whether there will be elections in May 2006?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, at present the elections will continue as the noble Lord would expect. I am delighted that he has read our manifesto. Of course, he needed to know what the Government were going to do.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, at the beginning of April, the electoral commissioner said that in Birmingham we witnessed examples of election fraud that would "disgrace a banana republic". I should add that that was despite the best efforts of this House and the advice of the Electoral Commission. As noble Lords know, I am involved in local government where the view is now that the best way of voting is the tried way at the ballot box. Whatever we do on postal voting, we should still have the ballot box available. Will the Minister give an assurance that the ballot box will always be available for voting if people want it?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am in favour of people being able to vote in elections by a variety of methods and of ensuring that we give people options, where appropriate. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, knows very well from his vast experience in local government, it has been found that in certain circumstances and particular elections—not least, for example, by-elections and parish council elections—a particular method suits the electorate better. It is right and proper that we continue to explore that.
	I take the point, which has been made very well in your Lordships' House, that security is important. We are planning to deal with those issues in our legislative programme and in conjunction with the Electoral Commission.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, given the vulnerability of the present system of postal voting on demand, do the Government intend to move as quickly as possible towards a system of individual registration or of household registration where every resident has to sign the form?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will know that in our consultation paper we indicate that we are very interested in that issue. He will know also that the Northern Ireland experience has, in a sense, cast a shadow over whether one goes for individual registration as we would think of it or individual registration within a household registration scheme. Those are the options we are looking to explore.

Lord Elton: My Lords, when local authorities apply to the Government for advice on introducing postal voting—as the Minister assures us they do—do the Government send them with their advice a copy of the recommendations contained in the report of the Electoral Commission against such a venture?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, local authorities do not apply only for advice; they have to apply for permission to do it. I do not know whether we provide a copy of the recommendations at that point, but I am confident that all local authorities will have had copies of the Electoral Commission report.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, do the Government or local authorities keep statistics of the numbers of ethnic minority men and women who have applied for postal ballots? I am making this elaborate effort because there are 25 Muslim women in the Gallery and I am trying to impress on people the fact that Muslim women have a voice.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has drawn attention to our visitors, who are most welcome in your Lordships' House today. I do not know whether we keep statistics of that kind. I shall of course inform my noble friend if that is the case.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, following the previous elections, in his introduction to Electoral Administration, A policy paper for discussion, the Lord Chancellor—who signed it "Charlie Falconer"—said:
	"The Government believes that the recent general and local elections were safe and secure, and produced results that were fair and accurate".
	Is that the right way to start a consultation?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the results of the general election were fair and accurate so that is precisely the way to start an introduction. When one is consulting about something as fundamental as our democracy, it is very important that we start by giving people confidence that the system works well. That does not mean that there are not issues we need to consider, but there should be no suggestion from anyone in Parliament that anything other than a fair and democratic result has been achieved.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on what seems to me to be a fundamental recommendation in Securing the vote; that voting by post should be a matter of individual choice. Do the Government accept that as a fundamental principle? If they do, will they look at the present electoral registration form—which is a household form—which allows the one person filling it in to apply for postal votes for everyone in the household, whether or not they want one?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that in the consultation we wish to consider how best to ensure people participate in the way they want to. Two local authorities have expressed an interest in an all-postal ballot for forthcoming by-elections and we should not rule out any options at any particular point. That is why the noble Lord believes I am sitting on the fence and why I insist that I am not. It is important that individual sets of circumstances should be taken into account. However, on the generality, I feel very passionately that people should have relevant options for the way in which they vote, particularly at general elections. We know only too well that for some people—whether it is mothers with young children, the elderly or the disabled—getting to a polling station to vote can be very difficult. The more we find different ways of allowing such people to vote, the better our democracy will be.

Pensioners: Free Bus Travel

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what form local government was consulted on the proposal to introduce free bus travel for pensioners.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the decision was made as part of the Budget announcement on 16 March. The Department for Transport is working with local government and bus operators to ensure the smooth implementation of the policy.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, does the Minister accept that had local authorities and bus companies been consulted before the announcement was made they might have been able to make the point then that the £350 million proposed by the Chancellor represents a significant shortfall? In the Tyne and Wear passenger transport area it is estimated that there will be a shortfall of £14 million. This can only be met by either reducing the bus services or increasing the council tax. Does the noble Lord agree that either of those options rather defeats the object?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is in danger of looking a gift horse in the mouth. I cannot imagine that too many Liberal Democrat candidates campaigned against this initiative at the last election. We have announced that we intend to introduce free bus travel for pensioners and the disabled and we have indicated that we are putting forward, for discussion with the local authorities, a sum to implement the policy. Nothing is cut and dried at the present time. An order will need to be laid before Parliament for further debate on this matter. Of course it is important that adequate resources are made available, but it will be recognised by the House that this is a very important step forward.

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I declare an interest as parliamentary consultant to the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK and chairman of the Bus Appeals Body, which is the complaints organisation for the industry. Does my noble friend agree that schemes such as this, which encourage people to move from their private cars to the bus, which has rising ridership anyway, are a good thing? If more people were to use the bus instead of using their private cars, perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport would not have to consider the kind of measures he has recently announced.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree that one dimension of the policy will be to increase bus travel and, it is to be hoped, reduce the use of cars. My noble friend is right to draw attention to that. We should also recognise that for the over-60s buses are an essential form of travel. Large numbers of elderly people do not have access to cars or are not able to drive themselves, so the bus is essential. Our extension of a free service to older people and the disabled will, I am sure, be welcomed on all sides.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the Minister's comments are somewhat contradictory to one of the Government's own quangos, the Commission for Integrated Transport. That commission has suggested that totally free buses for all the elderly was not a proper use of the money. It said that it might be better to have some kind of testing system for the elderly and to make the other money available for other disadvantaged and excluded groups. So the advice the Government are getting from their own quango is somewhat different from what the Minister has said. Can the Minister comment on that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is ne'er a good idea without someone raising criticism of it and objections to it, as we have seen already in the exchanges today. Of course other viewpoints have to be taken on board. We have time to do this because, as I said, an order will be placed before both Houses to implement this policy. It will be recognised that this policy will bring substantial benefit to a large number of people. Of course local authorities will point out that there are other groups about which they are concerned. However, we are not taking away from local authorities any discretion to extend the schemes they have or, in some areas, to continue to implement schemes which extend beyond these groups—for example, to young people. Nevertheless, the House will recognise that this a very important step forward by the Government.

Lord Peston: My Lords, on the assumption that these passes are made available, as they typically are, outside the rush hour, is my noble friend aware that the marginal cost of supplying the service to these people is exactly zero? Therefore it makes enormous economic sense—which is very rare in our world—to provide these free bus passes. The last thing we need to do—which is what the spokesman for the Opposition suggests—is set up a new bureaucratic structure to decide who is or is not worthy. This is a very simple and extremely sensible way forward to help older people with travel.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. As a distinguished economist, he is telling me that we have hit that halcyon day where marginal costs are absolute zero with regard to a policy. I can only rejoice.

Lord Monson: My Lords, while declaring an interest as a satisfied holder of a London bus pass, does not the Minister agree that it is somewhat ridiculous that well-to-do men and women of 60 plus, of whom there are now an enormous number in this country, should be able to travel totally free at the indirect expense of people who are, say, in their 30s or 40s and struggling to bring up a young family? There is no such thing as a gift horse, as the Minister suggested in his opening reply: someone has to pay.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course someone has to pay. That is why we have attached a price tag to the policy, which we think will command public assent for the benefits that it brings to those significant groups. The noble Lord suggests yet another area of policy where some form of means-testing would have to be imposed before one obtained a pass. The cost involved in that kind of exercise would be well beyond marginal. That is why we are introducing the policy in all its simplicity.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, bus pass schemes in Wales and Scotland will be universal schemes. Will the opportunity be taken to make the English bus pass schemes universal, or will we be left with hundreds of different schemes, as at present?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the principle is universal, but local authorities will of course vary in how they operate the scheme. We have no objection if, for instance, a local authority decides that it does not mind meeting the costs in its area of the limited number who may travel at peak time, although the cost that we are meeting is that of travel after 9.30 am. If local authorities want to exercise that discretion, that is surely something in which the noble Lord's party would see merit.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, do the Minister's earlier replies imply that if the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is wrong and there is a shortfall, the Chancellor will increase the £350 million that he is to make available?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is a braver man than I to question the economic expertise of my noble friend Lord Peston, but the simple fact of the matter is obvious. Whereas one could see increased costs for rush hour travel when in certain parts—many parts—of the country our transport system is fully stretched, my noble friend suggested that, outside rush hour, capacity is available and using that capacity more extensively is unlikely to incur extra cost.

Allied Rapid Reaction Corps: British Deployment

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How the British contingent from the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, to be sent to Afghanistan, will impact on deployment in Iraq.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the deployment of the British contingent from the Headquarters Allied Rapid Reaction Corps as the International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Afghanistan will have no impact on UK forces deployed to Iraq.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he accept that the National Audit Office's concern about the ability of the Ministry of Defence to take on more commitments underlines how inappropriate are cuts to the infantry at this time? Can the deployment to Afghanistan take place without the MoD eating into its own budget for Iraq?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will want to join me in congratulating the noble Lord on his birthday today.
	The NAO report was positive. It showed that the MoD has a good system for reporting the readiness levels of the Armed Forces and that the position today, in managing what is a challenging situation, but one that is sustainable, shows the excellent work that the MoD is doing. With regard to the transfer of forces, we have previously announced that the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps HQ in Afghanistan will be taken over by us next year. That decision was taken back in June 2004. No decision has been made on the full level of forces to be involved in that, but we do not envisage that that will require us to make any changes to our contingent in Iraq.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the NAO report is excellent and that the Ministry of Defence appears to have a good system for quantifying its problem. Does the Minister agree with the report when it states:
	"The Department has consistently exceeded the level of activity it plans to be able to sustain as norm"?
	The report shows that in a graph covering the past six years. Given the Minister's Answer, we must assume that in 2006 it will again exceed that level. Is it not about time that the department considered uplifting the planned level so that, in the long term, the Ministry of Defence will provide the right resources to underpin the level of activity that the Prime Minister is imposing on it?

Lord Drayson: Actually, my Lords, the number of regular Armed Forces deployed on operations and other military tasks has fallen from 20 per cent to 18 per cent from a peak of about 35 per cent during the war-fighting phase of Operation TELIC. With regard to the resources that the Government are providing for the Ministry of Defence, the operations that we require our forces to perform are, as I said, challenging but sustainable. One must consider what this Government have done, making a significant commitment to our defences with the largest sustained increase in defence spending for more than 20 years, on top of the additional £3.7 billion provided. As the Chancellor said in the Budget speech, this Government have set aside £4.9 billion for activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and the activities against terrorism.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Garden, said about the quality of the NAO report. Is the Minister aware that it states that, even assuming that operational commitments in Iraq reduce during the next one to two years, the department does not expect completely to recuperate to normal levels of preparedness until beyond the end of 2006? I appreciate that the Minister has only recently taken on his important responsibilities but, given the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and our commitments there, despite the statistics that he is able to cite, he will find that people who are familiar with the situation are much more worried about it. He ought to give careful attention to that.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I recognise the concern about the commitments that our Armed Forces have been asked to undertake. However, one thing that is clear from the NAO report is just how good a job the Ministry of Defence is doing in managing what is a challenging situation and showing that it is sustainable. Some decisions have been taken to allow us to do that. The report gives a good review of the process that has been used and shows that, currently, the Armed Forces are in a good state of readiness.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I think that the Minister said that he was unable to give a precise figure for the number of troops—servicemen—that we will send to Afghanistan next year. Nevertheless, to be able to judge the impact on Iraq and other commitments, it would be helpful if he could tell us the approximate scale of commitment to Afghanistan next year.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, we anticipate that the headquarters group of the ARRC will be of an approximately similar size to the group that is currently there under the Italian leadership. However, no decision has been taken on what additional troops will be provided as part of our aim to move into the southern part of Afghanistan next year. No decision has been taken about that yet.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my peripheral interest. The Minister mentioned the size of the budget but, as a percentage of gross domestic product, has the defence budget increased or decreased?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the important point is that in a challenging situation—I recognise the challenge that exists—this Government have made a significant investment in defence. One should not underestimate the challenge, given the way in which the nature of warfare has evolved recently. The Strategic Defence Review recognised that change and reforms have been introduced to ensure that our Armed Forces are capable of responding to it. If we consider the investment in our equipment budget—£68 billion over the next 10 years—or the number of warships being built at present, there is no doubt about the commitment of this Government to the proper defence of our country.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Afghanistan was our original priority and it enjoys considerable international support, unlike some of our other commitments?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, Afghanistan is an important priority for us, as is Iraq. As we have said in the past, our prime focus is the activities that we are undertaking in Iraq. Any decisions relating to any potential UK deployment in Afghanistan need to take into account the balancing of our commitments.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Puttnam and the Lord Pendry set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arts and Urban Regeneration

Lord Puttnam: rose to call attention to the contribution made by the arts to urban regeneration; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, in introducing this welcome opportunity to debate the contribution made by the arts to urban regeneration, I can do no better than start with an observation by an eminent former Member of your Lordships' House, John Maynard Keynes, who, in 1945, conjured up the possibility that cities that were half in ruin might one day be remade as great, artistic metropolises.
	Well, my Lords, I am delighted to report that in just about every respect that is at last happening. I am not so much introducing a debate as relating a success story, and a slightly unexpected one at that. Lord Keynes was, of course, speaking as chairman of what was to become the Arts Council, and that "Arts Council" was itself part of a wider movement of reform that, to all intents and purposes, transformed this country.
	The optimistic vision of the role of the arts in post-war regeneration that Keynes articulated was all of a piece with the creation of the NHS, the widening of public education and the establishment of the welfare state. In fact, it was an integral part of the many changes that society wholeheartedly embraced in response to the horrors and the hardships that typified the first half of the 20th century. Free access to health, education and the arts were seen as a kind of trinity of opportunity that was fundamental to the development of a genuinely civilised society.
	It is also probably true to say that the best part of 50 years elapsed before that particular trinity was rearticulated with anything like similar conviction. It took the creation of the National Lottery to deliver the resources required to inject life into what had been the hand-to-mouth, make-do-and-mend, day-to-day cultural experience of this country.
	I have recently been accused of being one of those people who seeks to take the politics out of politics. While I honestly do not believe that to be true, I will do my reputation no favours by making it clear that this cultural success story does enormous credit to the vision and perseverance of politicians of all parties and, at least until now, the comparative restraint successive governments have shown in ring-fencing lottery resources in such a way as to make what for so long appeared to be impossible not only possible, but deliverable.
	Please step forward the noble Lord, Lord Baker, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who I am delighted to see is participating in today's debate, and our soon-to-be colleague the right honourable Virginia Bottomley. The then Prime Minister also deserves major plaudits. The Liberal Democrat Benches should be allowed to glow a little because they have always tended towards a constructive and engaged policy in respect of the lottery. My own party's contribution was essentially to recognise a good idea when it saw one and, when the time came, to allow it to flourish.
	When, in the summer of 1994, the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, invited me to serve under his admirable chairmanship on the first Arts Council lottery panel, we had some vague but fairly unformed ideas of how investment in the infrastructure of the arts could result in wider improvements to the nation's social fabric. But once plunged into the complexity of the commitment to the Royal Opera House, our thoughts ran little further than the notion that if you redeveloped a disused railway arch as a community theatre or an art gallery, someone may be encouraged to reconsider the potential of the arches adjoining it. In many respects our earliest ambitions were, quite literally, that modest, but not for long.
	By 1996, we discovered that our funding of arts infrastructure was paying dividends well beyond our wildest dreams, and we began to plan and invest accordingly. In part, the drive in favour of regeneration was fuelled by the Government's commitment to what was, in effect, a self-denying ordinance; the concept of "additionality", which was interpreted as laying an emphasis on capital expenditure. I was delighted and somewhat relieved to see that commitment reappear on page 50 of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's five-year plan, rather unimaginatively entitled Living Life to the Full.
	In setting out the basic principles that are key to the lottery's success, and which must be safeguarded, the plan says:
	"Lottery funding must continue to be additional to government funding; it must not replace public sector spending".
	Given the rather over-excited press speculation that at present surrounds this subject, I am sure that the Minister in his response will wish, once and for all, to lay all of these anxieties to rest.
	So what, in those early years, did my then chairman and I learn about the impact of the arts on urban regeneration? We learnt that a well thought through investment in arts infrastructure invariably led to greatly enhanced pride, and a breaking down of cultural and social barriers within communities. We learnt how to redefine access and we tested the ability of interest groups to share their thinking, along with their facilities. We learnt that the concept of "partnership funding" produced imaginative sources of private and community investment that we at the centre had never even thought of. We learnt that if you permit people to take a fresh look at their environment, to get a sense of what is possible, they begin themselves to set about improving it. We learnt that what could be made to work in the arts could also be replicated in other areas—in sport, in education, in provision for the elderly, and so on.
	I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for devoting so much time to what might be described as the context that informs our present, relatively happy position, but I think it is important. I am quite certain that many of the noble Lords who have generously agreed to contribute to this debate will have their own examples of that dreadful but much used phrase, "best practice". So, in the time remaining to me, I will concentrate on just two or three examples of what has been achieved and why I believe we have every right to celebrate.
	I returned yesterday evening from Newcastle where I was able gaze across the Millennium Bridge at the Baltic Art Centre and the Sage Gateshead—three iconic structures that any city in the world would all but die for. It is sort of a miracle really, but it is a miracle resulting directly from the vision and the commitment to their community of a handful of really good souls. It is the kind of miracle that can only result from a combination of political stability, tenacity and good timing.
	You have to go back almost 20 years to find the genesis of the Gateshead miracle, to a time when Councillor Sid Henderson and his head of cultural services, Bill McNaught—backed to the hilt by their then leader, George Gill—appointed a full-time arts officer, Ros Rigby, and initiated an extraordinary community arts and public sculpture programme. That really took off in 1990 with the National Gardens Festival, at which no fewer than 70 works of art were displayed.
	The installation of Anthony Gormley's monumental Angel of the North eight years later was very much the natural consequence of that early faith in the power of public sculpture. Other local heroes, such as Les Elton, Tony Pender, Peter Hewitt and Andrew Dixon pressed forward with their Case for Capital, a document launched in this building by a young Opposition Front-Bench spokesman named Tony Blair. It precisely set out the vision that almost a decade later—greatly supported by the Arts Council—became the splendid reality that I encountered yesterday.
	Before moving south, I cannot resist indulging in a bit of local pride by mentioning the phenomenal success of the Sunderland Museum and Winter Gardens. Rebuilt with the support of the Heritage Lottery Fund and launched in 2001, it has since received more than 1.5 million visitors and was last year runner-up in the English tourism "oscars". We are now hoping that Sunderland will perform equally well in the Premiership next season: I think I hear a muttered reference to yet another miracle!
	I would like to finish by taking a look at a case history that pulls all of those threads together. It is just across the river, a short boat ride away to Southwark—the Tate Modern. Let us start with the fact that, from scratch—or with a little help from Sir Gilbert Scott—we have created the most successful museum of modern art in the world. Attendance has been double the then seemingly optimistic original expectations. The total number of visitors from its opening on 12 May 2000 to date is well over 21.5 million. By way of comparison, visitor numbers are running at roughly double those of the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the Pompidou Centre in Paris.
	But for the purposes of today's debate, there is an even better story to tell. I will take it as read that the dramatic improvement to the skyline across from St Paul's is a source of delight to all but the staunchest members of the Victorian Society. The Tate Modern is already estimated to contribute annually between £95 million and £140 million in economic benefits to London. It has generated something close to 2,000 new jobs in the area of Southwark, and that is set to double in the coming decade.
	Your Lordships have patiently listened to me "banging on" for over seven years now about the growth and importance of the cultural industries. So much so that it would be perfectly reasonable to expect me, or them, to begin to run out of steam. Well, I may be, but the cultural industries continue to go from strength to strength. They now represent over 8 per cent of this nation's GDP; that is up from 5 per cent when I started banging on a few years ago. They continue to grow at double the pace of the rest of the economy. It is the linkage between the creative or cultural industries and regeneration through investment in arts infrastructure that really lies at the heart of this debate.
	I beg noble Lords not just to take my word for it. Take that short ride down the river and experience what "regeneration"—an inadequate word for what I am trying to describe—really feels like. We should then cast our minds back to the Southwark wharves of Dickens's time, or the 1930s, 1950s or even the 1970s, all in their ways decades through which the community struggled in what became a byword for exploitation, unemployment and hopelessness. But if, my Lords, the sum total of human activity is to pull people out of misery and into living fulfilling lives, a trip around Southwark today may be enough to convince you that we have not all been wasting our time. I am no Pollyanna because of course much remains to be done, but the direction of travel feels right.
	The Tate estimates that the cultural sector within just its own study area will grow by some 55 per cent over the next 10 years. That translates into well over £0.5 billion a year in value and some 20,000 additional jobs, all within a vastly improved environment. I see that as the real value that the arts bring to urban regeneration, and it is happening all over this country. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for raising such an important matter at such a critical time. There is an undoubted growing interest in the relationship between culture and its capacity to stimulate social and economic growth. Urban regeneration can and is taking place in many areas of Britain, underpinned and sustained through harnessing creative talent.
	This debate is a welcome opportunity to celebrate the success and notoriety that we currently enjoy as a direct result of the endeavours of our nation's inspirational creators and artists, and their contribution to urban regeneration. It also gives me the chance to emphasise the amazing contribution made by the arts to educational opportunities. We must thank the voluntary sector for the enormous contribution it makes. Indeed, the many voluntary groups going into schools, providing more music and drama, must be encouraged and not stifled by needless regulation and political correctness.
	I want to highlight some areas where more can be done to foster even greater and more diverse creativity, as well as where recent legislation has put obstacles in the path of regeneration. Throughout my last three years on the DCMS brief, I have taken the opportunity to voice my thoughts and concerns relating to how we encourage, develop and, most important, protect creators and their rights. I think that this is a key point that must not be missed in the course of the debate. Not only must we seek to encourage greater contributions from the arts, we must also strive to ensure that creators can trust and rely on solid protection for the fruits of their labour. It is the solid protection of creators' rights that makes today's debate so timely and relevant to me personally, as next week in an Unstarred Question in the House I will be addressing the very issue of how we may better protect the intellectual property rights of our talented individuals.
	That said, in today's debate I want to focus on just a few recent developments which may serve to challenge the cultural industries but, if handled properly, could in my view lead to greater opportunities to access and exploit the benefits of the wider UK audience—by that I mean contributing to building human and social capital, and thereby our nation's quality of life. I speak mainly in relation to the recent additions of the Gambling and Licensing Acts to the statute book, and the changes being made in broadcasting to focus on a more regional agenda.
	My first point relates to the practical implications of the new licensing regulations for many of our pubs and other entertainment venues. The Licensing Act is in the process of making significant changes to licensing schemes for entertainment venues, and I believe strongly that this will impact on the ability of many of our nation's musicians to contribute to urban regeneration. If—I stress this—these changes are handled in the right way, they can enhance regeneration. Let me explain. The new licensing regulations will have an obvious knock-on effect for musicians who perform in our pubs and our clubs right across the country.
	Much has been made of the well publicised 24-hour drinking aspects that the new licences may eventually bring into existence. But what is most at stake and of key importance here to our artists is a general awareness of the fundamental requirements of the new licences. In particular, the Musicians' Union has expressed concern that venue owners are simply unaware of the obligations placed on them under changes to the licensing law which requires them to have filed their new licence applications by 6 August this year. Failure to do so means increased expense, complexity and delay. As John Smith, the general secretary of the Musicians' Union has said:
	"There is a real danger that the former '2-in-a-bar' venues will not opt for entertainment to be included in their new licences because of fears of onerous administrative burdens. If we lose these venues it will be a disaster for grassroots live music making".
	Are the Government doing enough to publicise these new requirements and the deadlines that accompany them? Many have argued that with the advent of 24/7 drinking, our communities will suffer through increased risk of crime and the overall diminution in quality of life. Home Office statistics which show a correlation between binge drinking and crime speak volumes. I believe passionately that much of that risk can be diverted by the promotion of more local live music. Indeed, I have said before in your Lordships' House that "more music . . . equals less trouble".
	Let me give a classic example. Over a four-day period, contrasting between alcohol consumption and trouble at Bath and the Glastonbury festival site, both sharing a similar population figure over the period, the crimes committed at Glastonbury totalled 478 while those committed in a comparable area of Bath amounted to 566. In short, sleepy, sedate and dignified Bath still managed to record just under 20 per cent more crime over the period than the Glastonbury festival, with 120,000 people in a field consuming most of the cider that Somerset could produce.
	Let us have more live music to counteract any negative impact the new licensing laws may bring. Music can act as an effective catalyst for improving the quality of life at a very local level. In short, the Government must do more to advertise and promote these licence changes and the impact they have in order to ensure that a golden opportunity to encourage and develop new, vibrant, creative live music is not lost.
	The record industry also plays a key role in contributing through the arts to urban regeneration. Let us take EMI's involvement in the regeneration of the Roundhouse, that legendary building in Camden, north London. The Roundhouse is being redeveloped into both an international performance centre venue and a state-of-the-art creative centre where up to 10,000 young people a year will be able to explore their creativity, learn skills and gain experience to achieve their full potential. EMI's support will go towards the creation of professional recording facilities and performing space in the creative centre. Opportunities of this kind for young people can do more than directly affect those passing through. If successful, they can also help to break the cycle of disadvantage in the surrounding community.
	I turn now briefly to the fundamentally important subject of broadcasting and the changes currently being made to the way in which our national broadcasters select their talent and run their businesses. Both the BBC and Channel 4 are currently involved in well publicised actions to cast their nets further in order to draw talent from and move closer to the wider regions of the UK, away from the capital. Small, independent producers feature highly on this agenda. Channel 4's Creative Cities initiative is a programme of activities taking place throughout the UK. It includes film and television production and off-screen innovations and partnerships. As it currently stands, Channel 4 commissions work mainly from small to medium-scale producers in key regional cities all around the UK. In a typical year, around £115 million is committed to original creative content in urban areas outside London. For one example, the show "Hollyoaks" employs hundreds of people in Liverpool. There are, however, wider incentives for the broader community in conducting more business through regional external producers—the companies and employees involved often have strong personal commitments to the regions in which they live and work, and under the new terms of trade between producers and broadcasters, the IP rights reside with these producers. That means far greater potential for enhanced social and economic development and regeneration for micro-economies outside London.
	There are all kinds of projects leading to urban regeneration through collaboration between broadcasters and key regeneration agencies and the community working together. One amazing example is the Castleford project in West Yorkshire, whereby Channel 4 is working in close consultation with the local community and agencies on 11 regeneration schemes in and around Castleford, a former mining town. Some of the schemes focus on improving the environment and some on supporting neglected neighbourhoods. The best thing about it is that the community has said what it would like rather than somebody—ergo the Government—telling people what is needed.
	The BBC also has strong commitments to various schemes of regionalisation and agrees that healthy competition in the supply of programmes tends to deliver the best results for audiences. It is so important that the BBC honours its obligations to devolve a good proportion of its programming operations to cities outside London. BBC Bristol, which houses the BBC's successful Natural History Unit, is a good example of this.
	Although it is clear that there is a real drive in the broadcasting industry to push into the regions and devolve production and facilities, there is a need to focus on the number of small independent producers and encourage them to build and grow in these communities. The pool of talent from which independent production sources are drawn should be as deep and as wide as possible to catch a varied array of talent and diversity in terms of both skills and geographical location.
	On a last note, I should mention the initiative recently taken to create a first super-casino in a region as yet undecided. This offers a golden opportunity to pilot a scheme, not just for a gambling centre, but for a centre which incorporates novel media and cultural benefits. Not only would such a drive be likely to unearth new and more diverse talent, but would also benefit the public as a whole and generate increased levels of public interest on a range of levels.
	I have spoken about music and licensing, broadcasting and gambling and the ongoing innovations in each that present us with tremendous opportunities to develop and regenerate our urban communities. Indeed, I have referred to just a few of the many amazing initiatives currently in place which are genuinely contributing to educational and employment opportunities. At the end of the day, regeneration is about a nation's people. The economic benefits are worth while, the social benefits are incalculable.
	In conclusion, therefore, I want to encourage the Minister to call on his Government to initiate research into the wider impact on society of our creative industries. All my instincts tell me that the results will prove the worth of the arts as a major contributor to the well-being of our society and, in particular, our urban communities.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for giving us this opportunity to debate the contribution the arts make to urban regeneration. However, I am moved to speak today because I believe that the arts have a role in regeneration in general. I want to speak about the role of the arts in rural communities because I wondered why the noble Lord had restricted his Motion to urban communities. To redress the balance slightly, I want in my brief contribution to give some examples of why the arts are equally important to rural areas.
	The noble Lord spoke of the trinity of opportunity, which is a good way of describing the opportunities that the arts can bring. I want to illustrate why that is equally important—sometimes more so—to rural communities. Before I do so I would like to refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said and declare an interest. I think that all of the cider consumed at the Glastonbury festival is produced by my brother-in-law and I am grateful to her for mentioning his role in making Glastonbury a better society.
	Why are the arts important in rural areas? When we speak of the arts we often think—we have heard some interesting examples this morning—of the big public art pieces such as the "Angel of the North" and our very own willow man on the M5 near Bridgwater. They are important for giving people a sense of place. But the role of the arts in rural areas that has become more important recently is that of knitting back together the unravelling social fabric of rural communities. It is a long and complicated task.
	One of the people whose views I sought in preparing for this speech is the director of the Beaford Arts Centre in Devon. It serves a huge rural area by putting on all sorts of events, from the more obvious ones such as musical theatre to some innovative ones such as having artists living with and sharing the lives of some Devon farming families. The artists then put on exhibitions all round the south-west showing the results of their observations in an attempt to reinterpret the life of the farmer to the wider community. That sort of work came out of the foot and mouth crisis.
	Such work is particularly necessary in rural communities that no longer have shops or pubs. Events that organisations such as the Beaford Arts Centre put on are often the only opportunities for rural communities to get together and have discussions, especially for non-churchgoers in the community. Although churches still have Sunday services, many people do not attend, so I submit that the arts events are one of the few times that the whole village gets together.
	The arts are important in maintaining and improving the social fabric of our rural communities. There is also a big role for the arts in giving people the opportunity to see beyond their normal horizons and in interpreting the world around them. Last weekend, I went to the Appledore visual arts festival where, the week before, Richard Long had completed a wonderful, enormous work of art on a blank white wall using the tidal mud from the Torridge estuary. Just listening to the comments of the people about the effect of the tide, the estuary and the mud and how that artwork made them feel gave me an enormous sense of what the arts can bring. People are given a sense of place and it is wonderful to have an artist with an international reputation, such as Richard Long, come and work there.
	However, in terms of seeing beyond the usual horizons I would draw another example—from the Plough Arts Centre, which is a particularly surprising place in that it is situated in a very small town with a population of only 5,000 but serves an enormous rural hinterland. It had 64,000 visitors through its doors last year. One of its most vibrant activities is the Plough Youth Theatre, which attracts 90 young people every week to a range of theatre skills workshops and performance projects. A recent youth theatre production featured a World War Two Polish humanitarian, Janus Korczak. The production was so well received that the cast of 45 young people has been invited to perform in Poland at an international festival in Warsaw in September. That astonished the young people, their parents and the local community. They are really excited about the prospects for young people, who do not usually have the opportunity to travel and see other countries in Europe and develop their talents at the same time. Such opportunities are more likely to be taken for granted in cities such as London, but are rare in rural areas and should be nurtured.
	Finally, the role of the arts in economic regeneration of rural areas must not be underestimated. Somerset Art Week, which started in 1994 and is held for two weeks in September every other year, contributes not only to the artists themselves from the sales made but also, almost incalculably, to the thousands of visitors who come to Somerset specifically for that event, and who also eat in the pubs, buy local products, and so on. That is a very real example of the arts drawing tourists in year after year, besides the more obvious examples that I quoted earlier of the public works of art.
	I have one question for the Minister. There is a national strategy on the arts, regional cultural strategies and national funding, but one of the gaps and difficulties is that not all local councils see the arts as a priority and choose to spend their hard-pressed budgets on them—though I am all for local government having a choice in where it spends its money. What assessment is made by the Audit Commission on whether a council has a balanced agenda? And does the importance of spending on the arts feature when the comprehensive performance assessment is made by the Audit Commission? If a council can be rated as excellent while ignoring something that I think every speaker here will accept is such an important feature of life for every community, then there is something wrong with that Audit Commission assessment.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, with his refreshing opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has reintroduced an absorbing topic. I admire his commitment, as I am sure we all do, to a more open society in many aspects of life.
	I bring no personal involvement to this debate but I have an artistic family and I recognise it to be a subject of continuing concern and importance. We should all, as citizens, have done more to make our urban environments more attractive and accessible than they are. This cannot be left to planners and officials. The well identified need for access and inclusion brings me straight to the obvious point that the communities most affected must take part in the decision making. I know that from my experience overseas, but I also know that it is easier said than done. Some areas of government are audibly groaning with formal consultations, and they must often wonder how decisions can be made at all.
	It is best done through partnership. Good practice in urban regeneration often comes through the efforts of smaller, voluntary and faith-based organisations, which ensure that there is genuine community involvement. I know that my noble friend Lord Best has particular experience here. I have seen examples myself in Camberwell, Coventry and elsewhere.
	All the authorities concerned with urban regeneration are now at least using the language of inclusion. The Arts Council and the Housing Corporation with the help of Aston Housing Consultancy launched an excellent document last week called Creative Neighbourhoods, which clearly demonstrates the results that can come from good two-way communications. English Heritage, in various recent documents, also seeks to inspire people and encourage them to get directly involved. The historic environment is not always ideal for touchy-feely policies, but English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund are succeeding in opening more historic landscapes and townscapes which give people pride and pleasure as well as physical access.
	Anyone who has walked through the Rope Walks area of Liverpool or parts of Brick Lane must feel that public money has been well spent. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned the knock-on effects of flagship projects such as Tate Modern, which has transformed the community of Southwark as well as the physical landscape. I am glad that the noble Lord also added the contribution of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott.
	As a nation, we are lucky to have benefited from immigration over the centuries which has endowed our cities with particular characteristics. This is now called diversity, but the word should not diminish the intrinsic economic, social and cultural value of those populations. We do not do enough to proclaim them. In the arts alone you often find that the incoming communities—say Afro-Caribbean or Latin American—have their own strong cultural traditions. They should participate more directly, not just in festivals and events, but in the planning and execution of housing development and regeneration. This is especially important where unemployment and work–poverty rates are higher in areas of inner cities where there is a greater concentration of these communities.
	Last year's DCMS report, Culture at the Heart of Regeneration, endorsed the value brought by the arts and culture to communities in regeneration areas across the country. The report, which has some excellent case studies, gave public recognition to the considerable role played by the arts in creating well designed, distinctive and enjoyable places for people to live and work. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, referred to these.
	Earlier last year the Government launched their Sustainable Communities Plan—a £38 billion programme to tackle housing shortages and to support the economic renaissance of the north. This investment will transform our landscape and create entirely new communities. In this the Government, I am glad to say, have emphasised the importance of good design and the impact that this can have on new housing and town-planning schemes.
	However, as I discovered while discussing an urban development corporation order in Northamptonshire last year in this House, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not the most obvious place or the best vehicle for local consultation on essential services, let alone on the arts. I do not believe, from what I hear, that the ODPM has adequately addressed or endorsed the role of arts and culture, and I would be interested to know what others feel about that. Nor, in the words of the DCMS report, has it "embedded" cultural facilities and activities in the heart of the new "sustainable communities".
	At an arts and housing seminar last week, on the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, spoke passionately about the heroic history of house-building in this country, from Victorian housing philanthropy to post-war reconstruction. She spoke of the need to consult local people about their needs and to encourage local participation in areas undergoing massive change. She spoke highly of the role that the arts can play in this process. So, perhaps the Minister will tell us which of these is the correct scenario today.
	Many people would like to see more evidence of joined-up thinking between at least seven government departments, so that the DCMS principles are acted upon. This means, in the jargon, mainstreaming the arts and culture into regeneration planning at the outset to ensure that there is sustainability for arts projects once the initial funding has disappeared, and that they are appropriately linked to other regeneration and economic activity.
	We also need more effective working between national and local government. The current review of planning legislation could do much to support the arts and culture as part of new capital development schemes. Guidance on planning obligations and the use of Section 106 planning gain—that is from the 1990 Act—could recommend the "creative" use of contributions towards the revenue costs of cultural activities, such as festivals or events, or the long-term support of arts organisations. This would promote sustainability and long-term benefit rather than one-off capital contributions.
	There need to be better links across the public sector to promote the central position of the arts and culture, in, for example, the local development frameworks and regional spatial strategies—the new favourites of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Those must be delivered through effective local and regional partnerships.
	Finally, we need to address the skills shortage in this area, in managing and delivering high quality arts projects in regeneration programmes. The Arts Council regionally is developing relationships with the new centres of excellence in regeneration, which are run by the RDAs, to train regeneration experts to appreciate culture, and cultural experts to understand regeneration. Artists also need specialist training, so that they can work more effectively in regeneration settings such as housing, hospitals and schools. Further work in that area needs to be developed with the Learning and Skills Council and the appropriate sector skills councils. Equally, local authorities must have properly resourced arts and culture departments so that there is appropriate support and expertise within local government to advise and deliver arts projects for their local communities.
	So there is a lot to be done—and each step of the way we need to keep in sight the quality of the project and maintain the highest standard of art and design in all areas of the country, old and new, urban and rural, so that we can rightly be proud of a heroic tradition of community building.

Lord Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for initiating this debate. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is in his place. I recollect that when he was Secretary of State, he received my deputation about the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. He was most courteous—and I recollect, despite the many years that have past, that in his ministerial room he displayed a very large and colourful John Piper landscape. I always thought that he was a genuine Minister for the arts—if I may say so.
	There is always a danger in attempting to advocate the arts via wider economic or social impacts. Also, regeneration cannot solely be about the physical and flagship buildings. The brutal fact remains that if a city has a deplorable housing problem and its citizens are crying out for help, the inclination and duty of the elected council is surely to face up to the priorities of local families before the opera house is built. However, the great city of Liverpool might be unique. Today its arts and regeneration are marching successfully in step; yet a generation ago, the city and its surrounds faced bewildering social and economic problems as its industries and docklands faltered. Nevertheless, in 2008, that reborn city will be European City of Culture, which in itself is a magnificent achievement; after all, the competition was of the highest quality, and the accompanying conditions were some of the most stringent imaginable. In truth, in Liverpool and Merseyside generally, councillors, chief officers, the agencies and Members of Parliament have been a superb team, and the city's growing success is well earned.
	In 2000, the area of Kensington in Liverpool was listed among the top 1 per cent of the most deprived wards in England and Wales. The Kensington regeneration partnership is now the largest of the 39 "new deal for communities" initiatives in this country. It is providing the resources for the renewal of the area within Merseyside's wider regeneration, supported by its objective 1 status and the development of the north-west region.
	In September 2003, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra launched the Music for Life project in partnership with the Kensington regeneration partnership. Music for Life is a unique five-year education residency by the philharmonic, representing a long-term commitment to the community of Kensington and to its progress in regeneration. The project has provided access to music and sought to develop musical excellence when financial limitations might otherwise prohibit such activity, by building an adoptive relationship between each school and one musician, by purchasing instruments and providing tuition, by exposing children and their families to a breadth of musical experiences, and by encouraging the community to recognise and exercise its entitlement to culture. At the completion of its second year, Music for Life is broadening the cultural awareness of the pupils and their families and tapping into the resources of creative organisations at local, regional and national level, and ensuring a deepening level of trust in the community throughout the regular presence of our LPO musicians.
	The impact of such sustained interventionist activity is significant and beyond the delivery of the music curriculum. Pupils' education attainment, behaviour and well-being is improving as a result. The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra is a society born of civic pride and the belief that music is a civilising influence, and that good can only spread from commitments such as the orchestra has shown.
	At this juncture, I should declare an interest as an honorary life member of the philharmonic—indeed, as a subscriber since the late 1970s—and as a friend of Merseyside Museums and Galleries. It is the case that Liverpool is frequently cited as the capital of north Wales. We believe that the orchestra is world-class; Maestro Schwarz's baton does impress. The board chairman, the distinguished Mr Roger Lewis, calls upon the able talents of the chief executive Michael Elliott and secretary Mr Peter Bounds. We have forged special links with Classic FM, to mutual advantage. Many people now believe that the orchestra is a standard-bearer for the arts.
	The challenge remains for regeneration, however. The Indices of Deprivation 2004 show the scale of the challenge. Liverpool was ranked number one out of 354 local authorities on overall deprivation, and it is ranked the second most deprived local authority on income and employment—as by government statistics. Some impacts related to the infrastructure can be measured relatively easily. For example, the National Museums Liverpool project was calculated to create 50 permanent new jobs and 500 jobs during construction. The economic impact of those new jobs and the associated multiplied effect within the local economy could be estimated quite easily. What is harder to estimate is the impact of increased visitor numbers to the World Museum Liverpool or Liverpool's Walker Art Gallery. At the World Museum Liverpool, the transfer to user friendliness is complete. There is now fun and laughter inside that distinguished museum—and, as a distinguished Merseysider told me, at last it is starting to look like a city of culture.
	Perhaps we can say at this junction that the arts and the cultural offer of a city is becoming a key element of city competitiveness in this new century. As such, it is a feature in securing footloose industries in a very competitive atmosphere. Maybe in that respect, the arts play a part in retaining employment and attracting new employment. The National Museums Liverpool is the biggest cultural employer in the north-west; it has almost 600 staff employed this year. It might be true to say that National Museums Liverpool has acted as a catalyst for city regeneration since the 1980s.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, before this debate started I recalled to myself with pleasure the delegation of the noble Lord, Lord Jones, a dozen years ago on behalf of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, but he has been characteristically kind in alluding to it himself. It is an event that I recall well. What he equally characteristically did not say today was how eloquent he was on that occasion in its cause, as, indeed, he has been on this occasion also.
	Without the smallest smidgen of hypocrisy I am happy to do obeisance at the feet of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for having secured this debate and for being so exactly the right person to open it, though I should have been just as happy if the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, had done it before she was robbed of her slot by the arrival of the general election. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is one of nature's cultural ambassadors. It is a splendid chance that in the midst of all his other educational shuttle diplomacy he should have landed on his feet today and hit the ground running. He is worthy of that national anthem ascribed by T H White in The Once and Future King to King Uther Pendragon,
	"Long Live King Pendragon Long may his reign drag on".
	I thank him for his kind reference to myself.
	Although my remarks will not be entirely friendly to the Government, I would also like to congratulate the DCMS on having commissioned research from academics at the London Metropolitan University, appositely based in areas where urban improvement is a priority, on the contribution of cultural regeneration in the UK, and on having followed it up with a consultation of its own on this subject, to which it published the responses in February this year. The first document seemed to me not only helpful in identifying a whole quarry of evidence on this subject but also relevant in its concluding recommendations, even if academia caused the language to be somewhat jargon-laden.
	The second DCMS document dated June 2004 prefaced its questions by saying that there had been,
	"an explosion of cultural activity"
	in the previous 10 years. As I had only been in office at the DCMS—as it then was not—for the first month of that decade, the only credit I can claim directly, more for the previous government than for myself, was the creation of the department itself. My two years in office were spent in taking one small grandfather department and the hitherto disconnected sections of five other Whitehall departments, all of whom came with their divergent Whitehall cultures and had never worked closely together previously, and forging them over the two years into a single common instrument in a new building.
	As events unfolded I had a mild regret that I was not afforded a third and final year to determine what we were going to do with the instrument once we had it, but it is one of the tenets of my party that we live in an imperfect world, and I make no complaint about that. It does, however, draw from me admiration for what the Government have set in motion in the area of this debate. If I have a single niggle, it is that they have publicised their initiatives too modestly. I have a continuing interest in this subject. My temperamental attitude to incoming information is more that of the scavenger jackdaw than the industrial shredder yet I knew nothing about the DCMS-inspired developments I am talking about until I started researching this debate.
	To balance that niggle, let me say that I think the process is as good as the process in Brussels retrospectively to monitor the utility of the cultural initiatives the Community's culture Ministers commission and endorse is poor.
	So far, so good. That epic County Sligo law firm of Argue and Phibbs is, alas, no more, but even their ghosts are not present in this debate on this very worthwhile subject, and it is useful to be challenged by questions such as, "What difference does public art make?" Ten minutes is too short a time to answer that, but to add to specific examples which have already been quoted, I have always thought that, regardless of one's aesthetic attitude, the floozy in the jacuzzi in Birmingham had a profound and symbolic significance in indicating the changes the city council was seeking to make in the city centre.
	On the questions in the second chapter of the DCMS consultation document, I have some prior constituency evidence in Covent Garden and Soho of local community reactions, which is what the chapter addresses. They are not an ideal test bed because the resistance of the community in Covent Garden and Soho to wholesale demolition and redevelopment in the 1960s was powerfully influenced by their centuries-old sense that their very architecture was part of their community ethos. Geoffrey Rippon's simultaneous listing of most of Covent Garden had a quality of reactionary conservatism that turned out to be inspired; but I always felt that the street theatre which blossomed in the Piazza, on the very threshold of the actors' church, St Paul's Covent Garden, was a marvellous lubricant to constructive change after the Duke of Bedford's fruit and vegetable market moved out.
	Nicholas Ridley's changes to the use classes order 15 years later in Soho had the less satisfactory effect of banishing centuries-old light industry in craft-based activities, but at least the creative industries moved in in their place to sustain the great enriching benefit of inner-city vibrancy.
	I have always liked the remark of Paul Claudel, the French ambassador in Washington at the time of the Wall Street crash, who said at a coincidental soirée on the very first night of the Niagaran descent of the stock market that,
	"between the crisis and the catastrophe there is always time for a glass of champagne".
	This debate is such a glass. But I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that the Government are endangering the golden eggs of the lottery by so diluting and manipulating the original good causes that they risk stopping this regeneration in its tracks. The latter is of exceptional importance in itself in the war against anti-social behaviour. People behave in the way they are treated. Give them good conditions and they will respond to them, indeed live up to them. Self-respect applies to communities as well as to individuals.
	We all know how we have got here. The Labour opposition in the Commons did not vote for the National Lottery etc Bill at Second Reading—they did not vote against it either—in part because of their misgivings about additionality, but did vote for it at Third Reading, which was a proxy index that some of their misgivings had been allayed. That Bill gave 20 per cent of the proceeds to the five good causes. As master masons of the Bill, we afforded the opportunity for Parliament to realign those 20 per cent allocations—quite apart from the Millennium Commission's eventual demise—not only in the Bill but subsequently on the Act. However, we suspected that they would remain intact once their champions realised that what went up could also go down, and that interference with the status quo could be destructive.
	After 1997, the Government rather than Parliament did interfere. Of the 600 responses to their consultation document, 90 per cent were from producer interests who understandably welcomed changes of which they would be beneficiaries. Thereafter, I embarrassed a DCMS Minister of State at Oral Questions in the other place by asking him to remind the House of the definition of "additionality". No names, no pack-drill, but his fig leaf of a reply—more wet lettuce than fig leaf—was that I knew perfectly well what the definition was. A worse index, after the New Opportunities Fund was set up, was that I heard not even from a DCMS Minister but from the Secretary of State for Health—again, no names, no pack-drill—about cancer developments in my constituency before I even heard from the New Opportunities Fund itself. Additionality was dying before our eyes.
	I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about these hazards. If I may act in conclusion antiphonally to him, my presence in this debate makes me an involuntary refugee from the Building of the Year Awards at the Savoy under the inimitable chairmanship of my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley. A year ago when I served under him on the judging panel, we gave a significant business class award to the self-designed new offices of an architectural practice within a stone's throw of Tate Modern, and its attraction to that area was not unconnected with the fact that Tate Modern was there.
	My personal hope for the 21st century is that we get more distinguished new buildings in this regeneration process rather than just makeovers, but that possibility has been happily enhanced by the choice of debate of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, today.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for securing this debate on the role that the arts can play in urban regeneration, particularly as it gives me the opportunity to ask the Minister what contribution his department has made to the forthcoming Green Paper. Perhaps he would write to me at a later time.
	Perhaps I might be permitted to quote from some remarks that I made in your Lordships' House:
	"Respect for adults; due deference to adults; and due respect for the experience of adults, must flow from and be associated with due respect and consideration by adults to the needs of children . . . Most importantly, all children growing up with no parents involved in their lives need one person, over the years, to whom they can turn for advice who is always there for them".—[Official Report, 25/5/05; col. 496.]
	The arts can play a crucial role in re-engaging young people who have had poor family experiences and who have every reason to distrust adults. The arts can be a means of encouraging them to begin to work with and regain confidence in adults. On the Continent, a widely used model of work with vulnerable young people and children is the pedagogic model: the pedagogue in Germany and the eastern and northern European countries; the social educateur in France and the south. That involves a good grounding and training for practitioners in the arts or in a craft and a thorough understanding of child development and the emotional needs of children. It includes strong development of their power to be advocates for children.
	I draw noble Lords' attention to a project that seems to capture many of those qualities, which runs in the south-east of London. The project is Kids Company, and it was established in 1996 by Camila Batmanghelidjh. I quote a letter written by Professor Aynsley-Green, a paediatrician at the Great Ormond Street children's hospital, and now the Commissioner for Children:
	"I have had a long-standing interest in the work of Kids Company . . . From these insights, I have the highest regard for Camila herself (especially for her visionary leadership and enthusiasm) and for the work that she is engaged in through trying to help the most severely affected end of social disadvantage".
	I visited Kids Company last year, and I was particularly interested in a disused mobile vehicle—perhaps a mobile library—in which they had established a number of installations by individual children. Each child had their own installation, which might include an item of poetry from them, or some creative writing about their experience. It might include found objects that they had placed in the cubicle. It was an overwhelming transmission of their experience of their own lives and life with their families. It was later exhibited at the Tate Modern gallery on the South Bank, which the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Brooke, and many other noble Lords, referred to and commended. That was one further spin-off of that important new institution. At the climax of the exhibition there was a day of drumming and music-making by adults, which again was a way of showing the esteem in which this was held.
	I met one of the young people, a 23 year-old, who had been engaged with the project for several years. He had spent time in Feltham Young Offender Institution. He had come to the project, and he had been helped to find accommodation by the manager, Camila Batmanghelidjh. When he had been in crisis, he had called her in the middle of the night and she had sat and talked with him. When it was right, she arranged for him to meet his mother and to be reunited with her. At that time, he still had a brother in prison. In that case, no arts were used to engage him, but the project heavily uses arts and every other means to engage disaffected young people.
	In particular, they try to use the local populace, particularly young Afro-Caribbean men, because many of their young people are Afro-Caribbean. I met one young Afro-Caribbean man who was a musician, and he engaged with young people. He would stand with them while they were having a cigarette outside and he would say, "Why don't we make some music together?". He would bring them in and form a relationship with them.
	The funding for this project has been hard to secure over the years because the children refer themselves; they are not referred by local authorities. Thanks partly to the work done by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales through Business in the Community, the Treasury and Mr Brown have recently been prevailed on to find £1.1 million in matched funding to support this project. That is warmly to be welcomed. Several noble Lords significantly support the charity, and I commend it to your Lordships.
	To conclude, the arts can play a vital role in regenerating neglected communities and in reaching out to young people—a vital role indeed. I emphasise that one needs to consider how one can sustain the relationships that are gained by using the arts for not just two or three months; but perhaps one, two or three years. The young person can be engaged through this programme. We therefore need to give the best professional support to people working in this area so that they can sustain relationships with difficult-to-manage young people. Will the Minister write to me on what contribution the DCMS has made to the youth Green Paper?

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Puttnam for introducing this debate. Of course, his involvement in the arts is well known and well respected. His interest in social affairs and education may be less well known, but he is passionate about them. This debate brings both strands together.
	A recent edition of the House magazine focused on regeneration. In it, David Miliband said:
	"At the heart of renewal is the commitment to civic action that creates value for society".
	We have seen social and industrial decay in some of our cities, which has been combated by initiatives in sport, investment in heritage projects, housing and other community activities. In all of those it has been important that local government and local organisations take the lead supported, where appropriate, by national funding.
	The arts also have an important role to play in regeneration, as well as for their own sake. I shall discuss today two initiatives that symbolise the power of the arts to do that. One is the work of Opera North, based in Leeds; the other is an arts programme in Brixton prison. Regeneration, for me, means that things have become decayed, depressed and non-functional. The arts can help to breathe life into communities and people. They can generate as well as regenerate. The arts can help young people to connect with activities that give them a purpose and somewhere to exercise the energy and talent so often translated into anti-social behaviour in our city centres. Young people have a right to education in the arts, just as they have a right to literacy and numeracy. I am pleased that so many noble Lords today have mentioned young people as being important.
	First, I shall discuss Opera North, on the other side of the Pennines from Liverpool, which was so well described by my noble friend Lord Jones. Many members of my family come from Liverpool. Opera North is based in splendid old but decaying Victorian buildings. It is committed to reaching out to communities, and is currently restructuring its buildings for the benefit of performers, audiences and the community.
	For example, the old Assembly Rooms, which have been closed to the public since 1978, are being restored to a social point for social and corporate activity. In particular, the Opera North education programme will have facilities to expand its on-site work involving schools from across the region. That programme has a combination of support from Opera North, Leeds City Council and the Arts Council England: an example of the collaboration between bodies for the good of communities that so many noble Lords have mentioned.
	Some examples of the work of Opera North include summer workshops for young people across Leeds who have little or no experience of arts activity; a project involving young people with Asperger's syndrome in a new partnership with NHS East Leeds; promoting healthcare—another example of partnership; a Little Magic Flute involving outreach work in primary schools, workshops for secondary schools and a school residency in the arts.
	In addition, the company is addressing the multicultural nature of its community by involving culturally diverse groups in special productions; for example, one tells the story of seven families in Bradford and another includes 50 children from a Dewsbury school and brings together classical Asian music and dancers.
	Those examples—there are many others from Opera North and other theatres and opera companies—can help to create not only appreciation of the arts but a sense of community. It is important to start early, as with sport, which at least two of us will be discussing this afternoon. Children and young people must be given opportunities to participate in both the arts and sport. I shall be asking in both debates how schools and communities encourage such participation by young people.
	There is still much to do. My noble friend Lady Howells has just reminded me that there is still not one black-run and led theatre company in the UK and that efforts to establish one are going through many obstacles.
	I turn to a prison programme. I was recently privileged to see a rehearsal and performance of a version of Othello in Brixton prison, performed by inmates supported by a few professional actors. That activity is organised by the London Shakespeare Workshop, under the direction of Bruce Wall. A company has been formed from those workshops and performers can now qualify for an Equity card at the end of the drama course. The company will go on tour next year, supported by UK arts, and paying the actors.
	Why is that work in prison regeneration? Because it regenerates people who in turn regenerate communities. The prisoner actors talk about the experience changing their lives, enabling them to communicate in positive and productive ways—what could be better for the health of a community?
	I have also seen in prisons music programmes, arts and crafts activities and literacy programmes, all of which have helped prisoners to find a way of expression that is positive and which help deal with the anger that so many feel. They may perhaps feel angry about being illiterate—an indictment of our education system—or neglected, because a large proportion of prisoners have gone through our care system, or disempowered.
	Prisons are costly in relation to human and economic factors. Reoffending rates are high: 60 per cent for adults and 80 per cent for young people. The financial costs of prisons are horrendous: around £11 billion. In the United States, more is spent on prisons than on education. Let us not go down that route. We cannot simply rely on punishment to stop this cycle. New and imaginative ways must be found to rehabilitate. Would it be more productive to spend money on positive initiatives than to fail time and again with prisoners, and consequently with their families and communities?
	Would it be better to prevent people going to prison in the first place? Opportunities for young people can help them to avoid the criminal justice system altogether. Opportunities in the arts and sport can contribute to that. I want to quote the Brixton prison governor, John Podmore, who said:
	"Prisons can and do strive to provide a job, a home, a doctor for people on release. Work is done to retain family ties and to rebuild relationships. But none of that has any value if the people we release have no belief in themselves, no self-esteem and no investment in the people and communities to which they return. If all they know and continue to experience is failure and exclusion, they will simply return leaving yet more victims in their wake".
	Constructive interaction is what regeneration is about in order to construct and reconstruct not only buildings but also lives. The arts, be it in schools, in workplaces, in prisons or in community settings can both reform but also prevent decay starting in the first place. Can I have the Minister's assurance that we do not forget this and that support for the arts, particularly for young people, will be promoted?

Lord Best: My Lords, I too am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for this debate, which I found fascinating. My organisation, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, is a relative latecomer to the idea that the arts can play a central role in the renewal of cities and neighbourhoods in need of regeneration. We used to see the arts as peripheral, even a distraction, to our interests in poverty, homelessness and other social problems, but we do not think like that any more; and like all converts we now feel passionate about the lessons we have learnt.
	It seems that there are three main ways in which the arts can make a mark in changing places and changing lives. First, there are the exciting opportunities to revive local economies and boost the morale of cities through prestigious arts and heritage projects, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. That approach has put places like Gateshead on the map with long-term job creation and a new civic pride. Liverpool will use its European Capital of Culture status to boost tourism and help retain and attract talent for the city.
	But that kind of benefit from arts projects is not where my foundation has concentrated. At the other end of the spectrum it is clear that local arts projects, often through schools, theatres and museums, can transform the lives of individuals, like the Music for Life project in Liverpool, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred. There is Bradford The Musical, of which I am a patron, in that city, which has a huge live performance tomorrow evening.
	Participation in all kinds of arts-based projects can boost self-confidence, unlock hidden talent, make people job-ready, provide inspiration and personal satisfaction—even in prisons, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, has explained. But those benefits from local arts projects in the redemption and transformation of the individual is not where my foundation has made its discovery.
	For us, the special way in which the arts can have a magical effect lies in the impact on community life in depressed and disadvantaged neighbourhoods. We have funded community-based projects of different kinds and it has become apparent that, particularly in terms of value for money, the arts route to social change can have truly amazing results.
	Perhaps I could describe one recent experiment that we organised. In each of three places—York, the London Borough of Lewisham, and Wakefield—we provided £100,000 over three years through the local authority to support a community initiative of its choice on a troubled council estate. In York, the funding paid for a very good community development worker. In Lewisham, two part-time youth workers were engaged in a helpful way. But it was in Wakefield that our modest investment achieved by far the biggest impact. There, a community arts project was chosen and a whole variety of estate-based arts activities was pursued.
	In Wakefield, a video film was made by the young people on the estate, a mosaic path was designed and laid out, dance sessions were organised with an inspiring drummer, there was an exhibition of paintings, and so on, including the creation of a herb garden—which, I admit, is pushing the definition of arts pretty far. What impressed us so much was that all those projects brought together older and younger people of different cultural backgrounds, and parents who had not talked to each other before.
	Good neighbourliness has to be based on people knowing one another, seeing what talents each other can bring, and doing something positive together. Although community-based work often involves bringing residents together for meetings on an estate, the participants tend to be of a particular age and outlook, and the subjects for discussion are often somewhat negative, such as complaining about some aspect of a service that the council is not delivering. Community arts, as in the Wakefield project, which became "The Art of Inclusion" programme, mean that people are learning about each other in a positive and fun context.
	We have been hugely encouraged by the reaction to our Wakefield work from Barnardo's, the children's charity, which operated on the same estate. So impressed was Barnardo's that it has now made community arts with young people a priority for its work across the country in different estates on which it operates.
	The community arts worker in Wakefield, Judi Alston, who achieved a huge improvement in relationships across that difficult council estate, illustrates the programme's outcomes with a story. She was walking with an elderly resident past the estate's corner shop. As they passed, she called across, "Hello there, Johnny", to which the reply came, "Oh, hello there, Mrs Whatever". As they moved on, the elderly woman said to Judi Alston, "Before you started working on this estate, I used to be afraid to go past the shop; I was frightened of all the boys hanging around outside and it was safer to stay at home. But I've got to know Johnny and some of the others, seeing them in that play and at the flags event. Oh, we are all friends now". Community arts can be the catalyst for creating community links and reducing anti-social behaviour, crime and the fear of crime.
	The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has shown an interest in putting community arts projects in deprived areas on a more consistent and stable footing. I suggest that the ODPM's substantial regeneration programmes should really incorporate the promotion of arts projects at the community level, as one component in getting communities back on their feet. The many millions of pounds available to regeneration partnerships, such as the New Deal for Communities, afford the opportunity for an arts ingredient to be a matter of course within the big budgets for neighbourhood renewal.
	The Home Office has an interest too, with its emphasis on citizenship, social cohesion and curbing anti-social behaviour. Liaison is needed with the regional arts councils, the Big Lottery Fund—it is interested in low art as well as high art—and the Department for Education and Skills. That brings me to my two key suggestions, which cover co-ordination and cash for community arts. Across government, there are clearly several interested parties. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether a cross-departmental committee—perhaps involving the Minister in the other place, David Lammy—might be established to co-ordinate the links between the arts and community regeneration.
	I am very grateful to Tessa Jowell for arranging a meeting last month with representatives covering many of government's range of interests, and it would be more than helpful if the Minister could indicate whether increased inter-governmental collaboration could not be engineered for that work.
	I also make the usual plea for some continuity of funding streams, so that community arts workers are not always on a hand-to-mouth existence, never more than a year away from having to move on. A stable financial regime, in place of contracts that last only one year or even less, would enable work in places like Wakefield to get really embedded in the community, and thereby play a disproportionately useful part in generating a strong sense of community, breaking down hostilities and barriers between generations and between ethnic groups.
	Unfortunately, community arts tend to be the little add-on—some icing on the cake—for places where, on a somewhat random basis, there are local advocates for this approach. Its potential will be unlocked only if central government are able to take a co-ordinating approach which can top-slice a small fraction of the resources that go to urban regeneration programmes. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to respond positively to my hopes for better co-ordination and more stable funding. Then this particular aspect of arts and regeneration—for which we now feel such enthusiasm at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—can work its magic for hundreds more fragmented local communities.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, as a newcomer to your Lordships' House, I realise that I should not be surprised that, by this stage in a debate, everything that I had hoped to say has already been said. However, I shall not be deterred, because some of my experiences give collateral to what has been said. Indeed, I have one or two things to add towards the end in what I hope will be a contribution based on the motivation—expressed already by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen—that, in considering regeneration of urban areas, we ought to consider the regeneration of the people who live in them. I shall confine my remarks and concentrate on two groups of people. The first are young people aged 16 to 25—older than the group so eloquently covered by my noble friend Lord Listowel—and the second are prisoners, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has already referred.
	I should perhaps declare an interest that I am chairman of an inquiry funded by the Whitbread Foundation, which has the terms of reference of encouraging decision-makers to maximise the contribution that the arts and sport can make to engaging young people in education, training and employment. We are doing that in Manchester, which is an enormously interesting place. As much as anything else, Manchester has benefited from regeneration—not least that resulting from the Commonwealth Games—but there is a whole wealth of artistic and other activity there that I find encouraging because of its width.
	Two weeks ago, I was in Moss Side, having walked across a grassy area to a club building and being told by my companion that 28 people had been shot in the area in recent years. I found in the building 70 young people aged between 16 and 25, from all different ethnic groups in the area, with different backgrounds. Some were recovering from drug problems, some had been in prison for various offences, and some were mentally disordered. They were united in a project called Unity Radio, which was putting across a programme of music that that group liked. Interestingly, it was coupled with information about activities appropriate to that group, and all those people said to me how much music was part of their life, and that, of all the activities that people presented to them, music meant most to them.
	The next day I had a meeting with another group, called Community Arts North West. It is a remarkable organisation that provides opportunities for young people to express themselves through music. The recent project on which they had embarked followed the idea of proclaiming cultural relations, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sandwich. At present there are 66 immigrant groups in Manchester, from 66 different parts of the world. Community Arts North West finds people who have recently arrived and encourages them to express themselves by performing their own cultural music and so on among other young people, and through that medium begin to establish relationships with others. It is interesting how that develops into cross-ethnic relationships, which helps those new residents of our country to be assimilated into the area.
	I should like to draw attention to another organisation, Dance United, which I saw working in Styal prison. The organisation started working in Ethiopia, helping children traumatised from the civil war to express themselves through dance and gain self-esteem. It worked so well that it brought the project back to England, where I have seen performances by young male prisoners in Holloway and Wetherby prisons. You simply would not believe the self-confidence that comes through self-expression in dance. Dance United has been working in many parts of the world and now works in Bradford, taking dance into the very complex ethnic situation but again responding to a need expressed by many young people: dance and music as a way of expressing themselves in this very complex world.
	As part of our inquiry we conducted a headcount of what people most want. It is interesting that top of the needs expressed by young people is safety, which has been represented often today. Top of what adults want for young people are facilities, which many noble Lords mentioned. Looking at safety and facilities as the way of encouraging young people to grow up to make a useful and law-abiding contribution to the world, it seems that the words of the Motion for this debate, which I salute the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for securing, include the need for regenerators to provide facilities and safety in which those activities can flourish.
	That brings me on to prisoners. Here I must declare another interest: in addition to being a member of the supervisory board of the London Shakespeare Workout, which the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has described, I am also chairman of the Koestler Arts Trust, which promotes an annual competition for prisoners and members of hospitals throughout the country. We have a programme called Learning to Learn through the Arts, which uses the arts as a trigger or gateway to learning, job skills and so on. That has previously been denied to many people and prisons provide an opportunity for doing something about it.
	This is where I re-echo noble Lords' remarks about the importance of sustaining the work begun with prisoners, whether through drama, art, reading or writing, if prisoners are to be able to lead a useful and law-abiding life when they come out. One statistic that I would add to those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is that all except 30 of the 76,000 prisoners today will be released; therefore, we must be ready to receive them. If we are to help them sustain what may have begun in prison, we must provide facilities for doing that, and what better than the arts?
	That leads me to my appeal to the Minister. Until 2002, there existed a Standing Committee on the Arts, which was responsible for co-ordinating the activities of all those helping prisoners with the arts. It included membership of what is now the DCMS, the Arts Council, the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office, and it was sponsored by the Prison Service. When the correctional service started in 1992, the Standing Committee disappeared but it ought to come back. Whereas we have a certain amount of co-operation between ministries on community activities, we do not have the same in delivery to prisons. I have talked to all the agencies that I mentioned and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, all of which seem to be dodging the column of who will chair the committee. I do not mind who chairs it, provided that it happens and it provides a forum in which everyone involved in supporting prisoners can come together.
	I hope that urban generation will be seen as a satisfaction of the needs of those who require help to enable them to be useful members of regenerated communities. Those responsible for regenerating should include that mission in whatever they are doing.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for the opportunity to look at this subject and to hear from such a diverse and distinguished list of speakers. As the spokesman on communities and local government, I do not bring any arts background to this debate and cannot hope to match the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, but I am part of the other category: I am a member of the public. I hesitate to use the term "member of the public" as I am sure the Department for Culture, Media and Sport would prefer to call us consumers, in the newspeak that is now so much part of its lexicon. My emphasis today will be on the relationship between the arts and regeneration, and their impact on communities. I also hope to touch on funding, as many other noble Lords have done.
	As someone who comes from the developing world, I can bear testimony to the fact that, despite UNESCO's best efforts, the arts are still seen in many parts of that world as an add-on, a luxury that will be contemplated only when schools, hospitals, roads and shiny government buildings have been built. So often it results in sterile cities built on a grid, with straight pavements but no life outside office hours. To find the real city one must go into the old town or centre to find real people going about their business. But that part of town is where the heart of the town is, where the community is located, where life is really lived.
	In the UK, thanks to Victorian housing that has lasted, in some parts too long, we have another kind of problem. In a post-industrial economy, our once great towns and cities have seen stages of economic decline, with the running down of physical infrastructure that increasingly blights the lives of the local community. While those who can "get on their bike" do, the rest of the people stay behind. The challenge for society is not only how we rebuild the physical infrastructure of those places but also how we sew in the social fabric to give people pride in their environment and a sense of belonging to that community.
	Several speakers emphasised the shining examples of how art and culture in general can be a driver of urban, rural—in the case of my noble friend Lady Miller—and economic growth. And they often are. Those examples show that, within two decades, culture-driven regeneration has come to take pride of place in our toolkit for dealing with decay. So does it work across the board?
	Having come here as a migrant, I tend to spend much of my time in the less salubrious parts of cities, where new arrivals and immigrants live cheek by jowl with the indigenous population. But there the difference ends. Those communities share the common problems of low-paid jobs, poor housing, poor health and high crime. For me the role of culture in urban regeneration is best seen when culture creates a narrative for a shared identity and increases people's sense of being anchored in the community. For that to succeed in the small to medium-scale ventures about which I am talking there must be considerable buy-in by local people.
	That buy-in comes best where there is serious consultation and sustained relationship-building across the board, from the town hall, to local groups, planners and the arts bodies. A good example of this is Liberal Democrat-run Liverpool, to which many noble Lords have referred, where the bid for the City of Culture focused on building a consensus on local issues so that priorities could evolve through a conversation in which everyone was involved. And the evidence is already starting to emerge as Liverpool city centre is reanimating the city. Its population has grown from 2,000, 10 years ago, and is now predicted to reach 20,000 by 2010.
	The key stakeholder in this relationship building across the local community is undoubtedly local government. Unfortunately, this Government's joined-up thinking does not go so far as to see that the "buy-in" from the community to its local council must be based on the local council being able to deliver for the community. Yet, year on year, local government's freedom to deliver on cultural services and the arts is squeezed by tight spending rounds. When local government budgets are ring-fenced by central government directions for spending on statutory services, localism goes straight out of the window. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, so clearly pointed out, "local" is essential for community regeneration.
	That brings me to the timely opportunity provided by this debate to raise the question of National Lottery funding. When the lottery was established, many people expressed concern that the principle of additionality should be enshrined in such a manner that successive governments could not overturn it. We heard eloquently on this matter from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. Now lottery funding is being used to fund MRI scanners in hospitals and fruit in primary schools. Those are sufficiently worthy in their own right and should not be funded by the vagaries of betting revenue.
	Recent press reports indicated that raiding the Big Lottery Fund is to become part and parcel of government expenditure as a replacement for public finances. If that is to pass, it will be all the more troubling, as it will twice penalise disadvantaged communities. It will do so, first, in reducing the pot from which community and charity groups fund local projects; and it will do so doubly, as the greatest purchase of lottery tickets is undertaken by those very communities at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder. So he who pays the piper will no longer even call part of the tune.
	If additional funding for education, health and the environment is needed, it should be borne by the Exchequer and raised through a progressive taxation system. That would be the just and honest way to pay for it. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this will continue to be the case and that lottery funds will remain wedded to the principle of additionality.
	In concluding, as so many noble friends have highlighted, the arts and regeneration are of a piece. They are two components of the same glue that builds social cohesion—the base for a good society. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for giving us this opportunity to reflect on these matters.

Lord Luke: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on securing this debate. It seems particularly pertinent that we are discussing this topic, not only in the wake of last weekend's successful Isle of Wight music festival, but in the run-up to the Live8 concert, which is using the talents of creative musicians to raise money and awareness of the dire situation in Africa.
	Your Lordships have, as always, all presented important issues based on personal experience and expertise. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Buscombe for highlighting how culture needs a joined-up approach, its importance within education and, particularly, the enormous influence of broadcasting on the young. She also made some particularly telling points concerning the implementation of the new licensing and gambling Acts. My noble friend Lord Brooke, in a delightful speech, as always, told us how the DCMS was formed and he made interesting points about the regeneration of Covent Garden.
	The arts, or what seems now to be called the creative industries, cover a wealth of individual skills and talents. It is a long time since the arts were just considered to be those enacted on the formal stage or something you could admire on a wall. As Her Majesty's Government's website highlights, today it includes,
	"advertising, architecture, antiques markets, crafts, design, designer fashion, film and video, interactive leisure software, music, the performing arts, publishing, software and computer games, television and radio".
	I am sure that there are others, too. Indeed, as I understand it, there is even a feeling in some parts that this definition in itself is too narrow. If a creative industry is one that has, according to the department,
	"a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property",
	do not ideas of philosophy, science and the use of mechanics in engineering also fit into that theme? Air liners, some of which are artistically beautiful—like the Comet, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree—or, at least, aesthetically pleasing, may have a practical slant, but effectively their production is a "creative engineering idea" which will, I hope, also maintain economic generation.
	I do not want to digress on a point of definition. It is clear, not only from the department's documents, but by the changes that can be seen on the ground, that arts, in all their rich variety, can bind people together, even though it may be in awe or loathing. The arts can be used positively to express differences and to contribute to wider social issues. We need to look no further than the other side of the river from your Lordships' House to see how the South Bank—let alone Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds—has been regenerated by the arts and architecture.
	Successful regeneration not only puts social, economic and environmental life back into an area but re-creates viable, attractive places which encourage sustained inward investment, particularly through business and tourism. Indeed, your Lordships will be glad to hear that the Lonely Planet backpackers' guide states that Britain is "buzzing", is a "cradle of multiculturalism" and that cities in the provinces have a "palpable sense of excitement". The Lonely Planet goes on to argue that Manchester is one of the country's
	"most exciting and interesting cities",
	and that Newcastle-upon-Tyne has displayed,
	"miraculous powers of urban regeneration",
	as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned.
	I much enjoyed a visit to Liverpool last year, which needed, and still needs, more regeneration, but has made an impressive beginning over the past 20 years. It was interesting to hear about the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra in an interchange of views between the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and my noble friend Lord Brooke. Liverpool certainly has a palpable sense of excitement, particularly over its forthcoming role as the cultural capital city of Europe in 2008, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
	While this is indisputable praise for what has been achieved to date in these areas, I cannot help but notice the bias towards the north side of the old north/south divide, particularly when one looks at the division of spoils in terms of lottery funding. The Local Government Association reports that twice as many lottery funds go to the north than those that are given to the south. The north is not the only region with problem areas that need regeneration—for example, Margate in Kent, which saw the last of its coalfields close in the 1980's and is still suffering high unemployment.
	The local Conservative council plans to build the "Turner Centre" over the sea in Margate Bay. It is billed to be one of the most revolutionary designs for a gallery to date. Yet, despite the area having the same average household income as west Wales and the north-east of England, the Arts Council has offered only one-sixth of the total cost of the project, leaving the local council to raise £20 million itself.
	In light of the new National Lottery Bill discussed on Tuesday in the other place, the Government are legislating to bring 50 per cent of National Lottery funds under their control and to use them to plug gaps in departmental budgets that presumably the infamous 66 tax rises to date since 1997 have failed to fill. As my honourable friend in the other place highlighted, what the Government have actually done with lottery funding is as follows: £231 million has been spent on ICT training for teachers and school libraries; £93 million on hospital equipment; £50 million on renewable energy; £42 million on the school fruit project; and, of course, there was the £45 million that the Government snaffled to pay for the Jamie Oliver school dinners project, trumpeted by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills as the Government's solution to the school dinners crisis. I wonder how many people buy their weekly lottery ticket thinking that the money will be spent on school dinners.
	Such snaffling of funds significantly reduces the amount that is available to the sport, art and cultural works that the lottery was set up to benefit. This appears to be acquisition by stealth of the control of funds, and it is also an erosion of the lottery council's independence. I would like to reiterate the comment made by my noble friend Lord Astor in the debate last week initiated by my noble friend Lord Eccles on museums. He said that there is a distinct and significant difference between public support and political control. If I may be so bold as to suggest, this proposed legislation appears to show a shift away from support of the creative industries and the vital role that they play in local and regional regeneration.
	I must mention at this stage a couple of examples that seem to me to be apt. First, the Guggenheim museum of modern art in Bilbao is a prime example of art bringing increased wealth through tourism to what was previously an area almost completely bereft of art. Secondly, I must also draw your Lordships' attention to the Unicorn project, where a new theatre to bring the stage to young children is even now being built close to Tower Bridge. That will be a very important element in the regeneration of that area of London.
	I would also like to highlight the fact that rural regeneration is just as important an imperative. There are often greater inequalities within regions than between them. I am glad to say that sensitive re-use or promotion of the historic environment through projects by organisations such as English Heritage recognises the importance of history and tradition as catalysts in both rural and urban areas, making the best of what already exists, while installing a strong sense of pride and place which, in its turn, will communicate a desire to visit to potential tourists.
	I was amused by the comment in the department's document, The contribution of culture to regeneration in the UK: a review of evidence, 2004, that,
	"There is less documentation of the failures of cultural regeneration projects, because these are, by definition, continuous and adaptable and therefore less likely to fail in regeneration terms".
	I have to conclude rather rapidly. I have but brushed broadly across an area that we could happily debate all day. It is clear from what your Lordships have said that culture, art and the creative industries have helped to revitalise our country socially and economically at local and national levels.
	Six years ago I initiated a debate on the regeneration of coastal resorts. During that debate many sensible things were said by noble colleagues as to what could and should be done, not least by incorporating artistic influences into the architecture, the style and the construction of new buildings—no more Brighton conference centres please. That is all still true now. Independence, imagination and openness are the key drivers in generating effective activity. Let us hope that they are allowed full rein. I very much look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Puttnam for initiating this debate. Sitting listening to the debate, I found it remarkable that there has not been a single voice saying that there is no connection between the arts and urban or rural regeneration. It is wonderful to hear so many examples from so many areas and so many slants on how importantly we view this. I thank my noble friend for initiating for me, and I suspect everyone else, an absolutely fascinating debate.
	If I were to try to answer all the questions raised I would take up my allotted time, so I shall briefly deal with them before I give my own views on the subject. If I miss out anything I shall write to noble Lords.
	My noble friend Lord Puttnam raised, as many others did, the principle of additionality. I and the Government support the additionality principle, but we have to acknowledge that there is strong public support for spending on health, education and the environment as well as on arts, heritage and sport, which will remain good causes through the next licence period. I believe the concern is that less money will be available for the arts. I can say on behalf of the Government that that simply will not happen.
	My noble friend Lord Puttnam also said that at the heart of this debate are the creative industries. I entirely agree with him. I shall deal in some detail with those.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Before he moves on from additionality, I intervene briefly to ask for clarification. The Minister tells us that, as a result of including three new areas to the good causes areas of funding, there will be no change to the funding available to projects that have been funded in the past. How can that be? How can one have 100 of something, add in three new recipients of the 100 and still expect the same funding to go to the previous five?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, all these decisions will be independent of government. They will be made by the Big Lottery Fund. As noble Lords know from the newspapers, there are very considerable surpluses in the lottery funds. One has to look not only at the revenue raised each year, but also at those surpluses to understand that what I have said will be possible. I know it is an issue. I wish to reassure noble Lords that the Government believe in the principle of additionality, which has been questioned in the debate.
	In her interesting speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, dealt with something that I believe goes to the heart of the matter; that is, intellectual property rights. As matters develop, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is almost a need for new law to protect those important and developing rights. I and, I suspect, many other noble Lords look forward to next week's debate when we shall have a chance to discuss that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, put a very important slant on the matter, asking us to look at rural areas. Being brought up in Suffolk, I saw and experienced the Aldeburgh festival which has a 12-month outreach programme into rural communities to bring in the arts. I absolutely agree with her. She asks about the Audit Commission. Currently the commission is finalising the inclusion of a culture block, as it calls it, as part of the comprehensive performance assessment of local authorities. My view, from a quango that I chaired, is that often local authorities are well ahead of central government in this area. I hope that I have given her a reassurance.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, stresses the importance of partnerships with absolutely genuine community involvement. I agree with that. The noble Earl is right to draw our attention to the real meaning of "diversity".
	Like a number of noble Lords, the noble Earl raised the question of the relationship between DCMS and other government departments. My noble friend Lady Andrews has just gone to ODPM as a Minister. She is very keen on getting the importance of arts in regeneration programmes on to ODPM's agenda and so we will begin to see strong connections between those two departments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jones, gave a fascinating account of cultural life in Liverpool, which is soon to be the city of culture. When I chaired a body that advised the government on museums, I spent many happy days in Liverpool. The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to what a vibrant and wonderful place it is in cultural matters.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, gave us the benefit of his considerable experience. He was indirectly responsible for my first job in public life as he was the Secretary of State who dreamt up the Library and Information Commission and I was the first chairman of that commission. I would like to thank him publicly for a wonderfully interesting experience. He said that the DCMS does not shout loud enough about what it does. My experience of a lifetime in the arts is that arts organisations, including DCMS, do shout, but nobody listens. I would be fascinated to hear from the noble Lord—in private and outside the Chamber—whether when he was in the Cabinet his colleagues shared his enthusiasm for the arts. My view is that arts do not appear on the radar screen of too many politicians. That is one of the problems. That is why there is such a wonderful consensus here between the parties, all of which support the arts.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, gave an extraordinarily interesting description of the Kids Company. On behalf of the Government, I can say that we support the importance of arts in reaching children. I shall speak later about creative partnerships and I shall write to the noble Earl about the DCMS contribution to the youth Green Paper.
	My noble friend Lady Massey spoke about Opera North and the arts programme in Brixton prison, which I shall say a little about later. She asked for an absolute assurance that the Government will continue to support the arts, particularly for young people. I can give her that assurance and I shall write to her giving details of all the activities that the Government have initiated or are initiating.
	From his experience with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the noble Lord, Lord Best, gave us fascinating, practical examples of how community arts can change community life. He spoke about the need for a cross-departmental committee. I agree with him. I could speak for an hour on the silo mentality in Whitehall, but I had better not. I think that the committee is a good idea and I shall pass it on to Ministers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, may be a newcomer, but his great experience in the areas in which he has worked will be of enormous value. Among other important points, he mentioned the Standing Committee that has disappeared. I get the impression that all government departments would like to bring it back, but they are arguing about who should chair it. I suggest from the Dispatch Box that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, puts himself forward as the chairman. With his experience, he would be the perfect person to do that job.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, gave us the perspective of an immigrant. It was very interesting. I agree that culture creates an identity and gives an anchor. It was encouraging to hear what she said.
	I shall deal with many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, in a moment, but I draw attention to the Turner centre in Margate. It illustrates the very important point that whether a local authority is Conservative-controlled, Liberal-controlled or Labour-controlled, all three political parties believe in the importance of using culture to regenerate. That is good. The noble Lord spoke about the north-south divide. It is a paradox that in the early years the complaint was that too much lottery money went to London and the south coast and the Government acted to make the spread clearer. On that point, we will make sure that the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, is not reversed.
	Exactly four years ago, I argued in the New Statesman Arts Lecture that to call for a debate on shipbuilding—then, as now, a tiny industry—would be seen as real politics, but to debate the future of music and design, which between them employ more people than steel, cars, shipbuilding and textiles, would be seen as frivolous. Maybe things have changed. Maybe there is now a realisation that our future prosperity may hinge on the very products of this frivolity, on what I called the "economy of the imagination". Indeed, maybe the link is finally being made between a thriving arts scene, vibrant cultural institutions and a robust economy. Maybe we are moving towards an acceptance that culture is not something that stands apart from the real business of the country, but that our cultural and educational institutions are a vital part of modern industrial and economic policy because they produce transferable specific and often highly technical skills that are used in the high-growth private sector industries.
	We are familiar with the statistics for the creative industries. They have been repeated this morning. They are that they produce 8 per cent of GDP, employ 2 million people and have a rate of growth that is double that of the economy. But what is the underlying value of this sector? What are the broader benefits that it brings? What is the relationship between the arts and creativity and the regeneration of our cities?
	If anything is clear from this debate today, it is that the term "arts" is certainly no longer restricted to the noble but rather rigid pursuits of the artistic elite. With that in mind, I recommend that noble Lords read What Good are the Arts? by John Carey, Merton Professor of English at Oxford. The fact that it is published by the firm that I used to work for is of no significance at all. What would John Maynard Keynes have made of all this when he asserted that the arts should provide "few, but roses" when public funding of the arts was first legislated for in 1946? Now we are much closer to the ideal envisaged by Juvenal when he declared that what people really wanted was "bread and circuses", but I think we would expand that to include literary festivals, virtual galleries, creative workspaces, Hollywood, street art and the rest.
	What of regeneration as we know it? There is no doubt that in the not-too-distant past there was a tendency towards the "Field of Dreams" approach, the formulaic working out of what a community needs. Give them a library and a swimming pool and that will keep people off the streets and build the odd museum if there are some local artefacts to gather dust.
	"If you build it, they will come"; I do not think so. Not even "If you build it and keep pouring loads of money into it, they may come" or "If you offer free entrance, they will come". Not any more; not these days, notwithstanding, of course, the success of free access to national museums and galleries.
	There is no doubt that museums, galleries and libraries play an absolutely crucial role in regeneration. Forget the Bilbao effect, we have the Tate Modern effect, the Greater Manchester effect, the Newcastle Gateshead effect and many others mentioned today where great iconic buildings, renovated or freshly minted, are housing cultural institutions that are having an inspirational effect on local neighbourhoods and populations and are bringing in jobs, tourism and investment.
	But it is not only about the buildings and the extraordinary activities that they house; it is also about the creative energy that is being unlocked in communities throughout the land—and that creative energy is being translated into creative industries, productivity and prosperity. Towns as far apart geographically and physically as Folkestone and Derby are putting the creative industries right at the heart of their economic plans for the future. These developments are restoring pride and giving new hope to cities which have seen their proud industrial heritage disappear and their futures undermined.
	For example, Nottingham has taken its lace market and developed it into a vibrant creative quarter, with an emphasis on fashion and design, while Birmingham has taken its historic jewellery centre and expanded it into a centre for 1,500 small buildings, many of which are still jewellery-based and most of which are housed in unique historic businesses. Both cities have looked to their histories to create living areas that are now both relevant and commercial, that make sense to the local population and that provide working space and livelihoods to the emerging creative population—a mainly young population seeking outlets for their energies. Give them studios, not ASBOs, I say. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, agrees with that point.
	But to expand the demand-side argument even further, the most successful cities are not just concerned with retaining skills and providing a reason for inward migration; they are also actively influencing their local education providers to ensure that the workforce will match the opportunities that are being developed. It makes sense that Creative Partnerships—the educational initiative that seeks to make meaningful links between schools and professional cultural organisations—are being designed and delivered locally and, in some cases, making a truly meaningful local impact.
	In one of these partnerships—the Deansfield High School in Wolverhampton—students have been working with artists, architects and council builders to come up with a regeneration plan for a local site, designing elements of it themselves in consultation with these experts. Most importantly, such an experience may give these students a glimpse into the opportunities that a creative future may hold within their own communities and will go some way towards breaking the cycle—the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to this—of low aspiration that prevails in many post-industrial areas. Not so much "If you build it, they will come" but "If you let them build it for themselves, they will stay".
	If we are to be realistic, we must acknowledge that our future role in the global economy is not likely to be in conventional mass production. But we definitely have an edge when it comes to creating prototypes and producing the kind of goods that can be effortlessly reproduced and instantly exported. I refer, of course, to the products of intellect and technology that can be zapped around the world with the minimum of cost. Are noble Lords aware that the video game "Tomb Raider"—vehicle for the legendary Lara Croft—originated in Derby?
	There is no doubt that this country leads the way internationally in many of the arts and creative industries. Our theatres are going through a golden age; our orchestras are at the top of their game; our popular music continues to lead the world; and our architects and fashion designers are dominating trends everywhere.
	But we cannot afford to take it for granted that this will continue, not without a real understanding of creativity and the creative industries and how we can harness their power and drive them forward. We cannot rest on our laurels on this. Over the past decade we have won, on average, 21 per cent of the major creative and technical Oscars in Hollywood, but we have consistently lacked a film industry capable of building on this talent. We may have the leading edge in some fields, but others will be quick to exploit them if we do not.
	I welcome the DTI-sponsored investigation that Sir George Cox is leading into how creativity can improve the productivity of small and medium-sized businesses. Again with DTI involvement, we see the small seed of inter-departmental co-operation. I am sure that there will be many useful lessons to be imported from the creative industries that depend on innovation and risk-taking for their survival. But I wonder whether we yet know enough about these creative industries and the issues that may be hampering their own productivity.
	My right honourable friend—soon to be my noble friend—Chris Smith, when Secretary of State at the DCMS, identified the creative industries as a key area for study and development. Along with many people, I feel that this vitally important initiative has dropped out of sight. However, we can take great encouragement from the appointment of James Purnell to the DCMS as Minister for Creative Industries and from the knowledge that he is today setting out his vision for a framework to ensure that our innate creativity can be turned into our long-term competitive advantage.
	I now think the time has come to call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to initiate a Treasury-sponsored study into the state of our creative industries and what their true value is—not only economically but educationally, socially and on a human level.
	In closing, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I am sorry if I have dwelt too much on the issue of the creative industries but I firmly believe, along with my noble friend Lord Puttnam, that it is the heart, the driver, of what is happening. It is the most powerful tool we have for urban regeneration. Of course, the arts themselves are a formidable creative industry. Let us not forget that without the arts—the training, the inspiration and the heritage—there would be no creative industries.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him to clarify one point which will be important for the charity Kids Company. In welcoming the important new funding for that charity, can the Minister clarify that the charity will not receive funding unless it can itself match the funding? So the charity will have to go out and find equal funding. I am sorry if I did not make that clear earlier.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, there is a danger in me clarifying something I am not totally sure about. But, yes, I am fairly sure that there will be matching funding. If I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Earl.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As much as anything else, it has been valuable for establishing the quite extraordinary level of consensus that exists in the belief in a linkage between the economy, people's lives, urban regeneration and the quality of the environment, all of which is having such a tremendous impact throughout the length and breadth of this country.
	I should, in a sense, apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I inherited the title of the debate. But as someone who lives in a rural community, I should be very happy to join with the noble Baroness at any time in a debate to discuss the challenges and opportunities that exist in rural regeneration.
	Perhaps I may make a couple of points. I was riveted by the description of my noble friend Lord Jones of Kensington in Liverpool, which I know very well. Only three weeks ago I had the privilege of going to Liverpool to speak at the memorial service of our late and much missed colleague the former Bishop of Liverpool, David Sheppard. On the way from the station in a cab, as we passed one miraculous new building after another, I said to the taxi driver, "What do you put the extraordinary sense of confidence that is taking place in this city down to?". He said—and I will have a crack at the accent—"Oh, it's simple. We just stopped feeling sorry for ourselves". That is not a bad way of summing up the impact of regeneration on a city's sense of itself. I was especially encouraged by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Best. The fact that such an important organisation as his is taking a serious position in this area can only augur well for the future.
	If this were a movie, the credits would roll for a considerable time, but it would be quite wrong for me not to acknowledge a little of the help that I received in preparing for today's debate. My principal thanks go of course to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall for securing the debate in the first place. It is a sadness to all of us that she was not able to be here to speak. I must again doff my cap to the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, from whom I learnt so much during our enormously productive time working together on the Arts Council lottery panel; to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for his brilliant volumes on the life of Lord Keynes, which gave me a beginning to my speech; to Sir Christopher Frayling, the present chairman of the Arts Council, whose enthusiasm for and knowledge of the subject far exceed mine, and the Arts Council staff, especially Kelly Wiffen; to Sir Nicholas Serota and his staff and at the Tate and, last but not least, to my noble friend Lady Andrews, for the help that her officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister gave me.
	Speaking of officials, two things occurred to me while listening to the debate. The first—I have been wanting to say this for a long while—is that, according to the DCMS report, £16.5 billion has been spent since the lottery began, on 190,000 projects. One of the great benefits of speaking in your Lordships' House is that you know that you will never be reported and the media will take no notice whatever. But it strikes me as interesting that none of our media has sought to comment on the fact that £16.5 billion spent on 190,000 projects has resulted in no scandals. No one has run off with the money. There have been no disasters or catastrophes. What other country in the world could have managed its processes, its unpaid committees, and its officials so admirably as to deliver that? It would be nice to think that one or two members of the press might pick that up, but we can be fairly certain that they will not.
	One final thought. At the height of Athens's fame, on attaining the age of 17, all Athenian young men were required to pledge an oath to their city, which finished roughly like this: "Thus, in all these ways, I will leave the city not less but greater and more beautiful than it was left to us". We pass a great deal of legislation through this House—sometimes, I think, too much—but how happy I would be if we were able to find some means to suggest to our young men and women that they might take on some similar form of obligation, because then we could look forward to an extraordinary continuation in urban regeneration that would stretch way past my lifetime. With that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sport

Lord Pendry: rose to call attention to the development of sport in local communities and its contribution to the achievement of sporting excellence; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, this is a timely debate with 6 July looming when the International Olympic Committee decides on the bid for the 2012 Olympic Games, for which we are hopeful of being the successful candidate. That bid is not of itself the reason that this debate has been tabled, but there is a link between a successful bid and grassroots participation. We have all seen what has happened in Barcelona, Sydney and Athens, where, following those countries' successful bids, the amount of grassroots involvement rose dramatically at every level. Also, in the games themselves, record numbers of medals were won by all the host nations. So there is correlation between the success of our Olympic bid and of elite and community sport. I am sure that your Lordships will back our bid to the hilt before 6 July.
	In 1997, when Labour came to power, sport was in the doldrums. Minister after Minister failed to get to grips with the declining sporting scene. Only the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, when in that position seemed to understand the problems we faced—as far as he was allowed by his masters or, perhaps more accurately, by his headmistress to act in the way that I am sure he would have preferred. I clearly exempt the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, who was a capable Minister for Sport, from that charge, but I am referring to a different period from when he was in charge.
	I have to remind the House that the situation in 1997 was dire. School sport was in decline, with extra-curricular sporting fixtures, in particular, down by three-quarters. Every free-standing physical education college had been closed. It was reliably estimated that physical education in 40 per cent of our primary schools was not of a suitable standard. On top of that, 5,000 playing fields had been sold off, with many more under threat.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but if he could speak under a microphone—there is not one in the aisle—our colleagues and friends opposite would be able to hear what he is saying.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I would certainly not want any of my words not to be understood, so that was a very wise intervention on the Minister's part.
	I was saying that physical education in 40 per cent of our primary schools was not of a suitable standard. On top of that, 5,000 playing fields had been sold off, with many more sales in the pipeline. So in 1997 the incoming Government had a mountain to climb and have understandably taken some time to implement all the required changes to effect the kind of change necessary to put sport on the footing that it deserves. Enormous progress has been made. Even this week, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has announced plans to extend school days from 8 am to 6 pm, which will provide more opportunities for extra-curricular activities, including sport. I am sure that we will see the benefits in years to come and welcome the positive reaction of teachers and, in particular, headteacher unions.
	The delivery of funding is improving, not least as a result of the reform that has taken place at Sport England, which has undertaken a rigorous programme of modernisation. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, will refer to that in his contribution.
	I know that the current Minister for Sport has had to take some difficult decisions regarding funding streams to ensure that funds are being directed to those in the frontline, not being absorbed by bureaucracy. So too at UK Sport, where its own modernisation process has focused funding on performance ratings, as it targets the sports that can demonstrate that they will do well at forthcoming international events.
	The development of sport within the local community thankfully is now at an all time high. So many successful schemes are being undertaken by various organisations, but I should like to highlight one or two which have impressed me. In the debate on the gracious Speech, I referred to the PE, school sport and club links, which will develop further as schools and clubs integrate into not only the provision but extension of participation by widening the scope of accessibility for young people. That mechanism will develop not only sport but emerging talent. That will encourage lifelong participation and activity.
	I make no apologies for referring to one such scheme funded by the Football Foundation, of which I am president. Buckhurst Hill Junior Football Club, in Essex, had faced closure after an arson attack on its ground. The club was able to build a new clubhouse and purchase the ground from the local council as a result of a grant of £290,546 from the Football Foundation. Now the club is thriving, providing some of the best facilities in the country to hundreds of young people. Its membership has been doubled, with nearly 500 players using the site every week. Participation has escalated. Buckhurst Hill now has a girls' section, running teams between the ages of six and 16. About 250 boys are playing in 16 teams each week, as well as 160 adult male players, accompanied by 25 professionally qualified coaches who run sessions and provide after-school football for local children.
	Local community sport is also important because of its wider benefits. By that I refer to the important impact that sport and physical activity have in improving community safety, health, social inclusion and cohesion. Sport can have many health benefits, including reducing obesity and combating heart disease. Such are the advantages of participating in physical activity and sport that the Government in their public health paper, Choosing Health, point to the use of sport participation and outline measures to promote the opportunities and benefits as a priority. In their health paper, the Government recommend the expansion of the scope of activeplaces.com, the facilities database, to ensure that everyone is aware of the opportunities that exist, which will drive up interest and participation.
	There are also programmes within the Prince's Trust—for example, Positive Futures—and the work undertaken by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which use sport and leisure activities to engage disadvantaged and socially marginalised young people positively to influence the participants of substance misuse and offending behaviour towards physical activity. Unique projects such as these use the power and popularity of sport to provide professional coaching and competitive games, as well as educational opportunities, training and healthy lifestyle information.
	Those projects are undertaken in partnership with local organisations, the police and youth offending teams to combat anti-social activities within society. A recent survey of the project partners illustrates the potential that those schemes have already shown: 72 per cent believe that anti-social behaviour has fallen as a result of Positive Futures; 80 per cent believe that sport-based activities are more available as a result of Positive Futures; 78 per cent state that Positive Futures helps participants to relate better; and 63 per cent believe that local crime has fallen as a result of Positive Futures.
	Of particular interest to my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who is on the Government Front Bench today, will be the Positive Futures programme in Oldham, which has received a grant of £91,293 from the Football Foundation to develop a programme in Oldham, which is part of Oldham's crime and community safety strategy. It will provide activities for young people between the ages of eight and 16 in several areas identified as socially and economically disadvantaged.
	A scheme based in Manchester draws heavily on the idea of development of sport and the identification of talent. This scheme was originally organised by the head of leisure at Manchester City Council in 1992, but has been spearheaded since by the remarkable athlete Geoff Thompson, who comes from a socially deprived background. I am hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who will make a contribution today, will be able to speak in more depth than I on this subject.
	Football clubs are playing their part in developing community schemes—for example Manchester City, which is to run a ground-breaking project aimed at encouraging disengaged 16 to 19 year-olds to return to full time education or employment. It is entitled Kick Start and is being organised in partnership with Manchester Youth College. A welcomed bridge between community level and elite level sport is the Talented Athlete Scholarship Scheme for young athletes. The Government in their manifesto stated that they have launched,
	"2012 scholarships worth around £10,000 a year each for our most talented 12 to 18 year-olds".
	Scholarships and bursaries can provide the young promising Olympians of the future with access to high quality facilities and sporting services. That is the sort of investment required to enhance the levels of sporting excellence by providing the opportunities that would otherwise not be available.
	It is clear that sport is an important mechanism by way of inspiring and motivating more people to participate. Again, I refer to the Football Foundation, which uses Premier League stars in its ambassador scheme to promote,
	"the work of the Foundation, the UK's biggest sports charity, at the grassroots of the game and highlight the essential role of football in the community".
	I witnessed the launch of one ambassador, Wes Brown of Manchester United, in my home town of Stalybridge, at which many children, mostly girls, were present. Having a "star" at such events generates interest and engages more people in sport.
	What better way to engage more people—children and adults—in sport in the future than hosting the Olympic Games? The Olympics is the epitome of sporting excellence and victory on 6 July would be greatly advantageous not only to London, but also to the country as a whole. There will be tangible benefits, such as thousands of new jobs, a boost to UK tourism and a sporting legacy for the UK, which would be felt by generations to come.
	The country has already shown its capacity to deliver events of this kind and we cannot forget the contribution made by volunteers. Without volunteers sporting excellence would be only a fraction of what it is today. Volunteers play a massive role in national sporting life. The London Marathon relies on 6,000 volunteers and the Manchester Commonwealth Games involved 10,000 volunteers, thus suggesting that the role of the volunteer will be a vital ingredient to the 2012 Olympic bid. The development of sport at local and club level is also dependent on volunteers. Sport is the most common form of volunteering, accounting for 26 per cent of all volunteering.
	In that context, I welcome the recommendations of the Russell commission report, which identified Sport England as a key delivery partner in meeting the aspiration of attracting 1 million more young volunteers. Volunteers have and will continue to make an important contribution to the development of sport and sporting excellence.
	I am also pleased to say that the All-Party Group on Volunteering, headed by Julian Brazier MP, is campaigning for the rights of volunteers following the CCPR survey, which identified eight reasons why people were reluctant to volunteer—the top reason being the blame culture and threat of litigation. Last year, a Private Member's Bill in the Commons sort to provide protection for volunteers in that area, but it fell off the legislative timetable because of the general election. I am pleased that the Government are to bring in a Bill soon to rectify the problems in that area.
	By way of conclusion, I wish to refer to the Cabinet Office strategy document, Game Plan, which has emphasised two major objectives; namely, increasing international success and increasing participation. These are the two interdependent aims that form the backbone of this debate. I therefore urge the House to back the Government in pursuing sporting developments within the community in order to increase the opportunities for sporting excellence in the UK. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, not only for what he has said, but also for what he does week-in week-out as chairman of the all-party sports group in Westminster. He brings most interesting people to talk to the sports committee. We benefit very much from getting together in a non-political sense to talk about sport, in which we are all so interested.
	I was not going to talk about things that are on people's minds now, such as the Olympic bid, because we cannot do much about that except hope for success on 6 July. But it is right to say that in past years we have made some progress through the sports councils of the four countries, the local authorities and the governing bodies of sport generally. With Olympic successes and our fingers crossed for rugby football and cricket in the next few weeks, we hope that all will go well there too. As regards Wembley, is the noble Lord happy with the way things are going at present? Is the £20 million provided by Sport England still safe in the interests of athletics?
	I want to turn, as did the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, to grassroots and talk about leadership—through teachers and volunteers. A good many ills of this country, right down to social deprivation, could be cured if we had much more effective leadership of young people. The problem is being addressed. Sports Leaders UK, which used to be the British Sports Trust, is led extremely effectively by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. The organisation is doing an immense amount to develop leadership through its chief executive officer, Linda Plowright. Courses are held all the time, with qualifications arising from them. Since 1987, some 300,000 youngsters have gained qualifications, and last year 91,000 young people attended its courses. It is important to note that all this is being done at minimum cost, funded largely by charities and sponsorship. The Government might bear that in mind as an example of value for money in terms of funding for sport. Perhaps they might think a little more on giving it additional support.
	Full credit is also due to the Central Council for Physical Recreation, although I was sorry to hear that its chief executive officer, Margaret Talbot, is leaving. The CCPR has being doing a lot of very good things lately; for example, by providing papers for this debate, holding conferences and producing brochures. It represents the sports governing bodies of this country, along with the volunteers who do so much to make UK sport work. Indeed, a line from its recent paper states:
	"Community sport is vital to the growth of sporting excellence".
	We have to start at the bottom if we are to achieve success at the top.
	I believe that sport and recreation can play an important part in the development of character, personality, confidence and discipline in young people, boys and girls. That has to be done partly in school time and in part after school, which is a problem for the education authorities. They simply must find time to give boys and girls the opportunity to participate in sport, particularly in team games, which do so much to develop character. I mention also outward-bound activities such as mountaineering and canoeing, in which youngsters should be pushed to the extreme limit without being foolhardy. They then find that they can achieve something far ahead of what they ever thought possible.
	What is holding us back in this field? Not only are there continual arguments in education about how many hours children can participate in games each week, but also the nanny society seems to be taking over. Because of legislation and the threat of losing their jobs, teachers and volunteers are afraid of participating in case a child has some form of accident. I read in the newspapers last week about some of the guidelines being issued by Sport England and, no doubt, by the Health and Safety Executive. They overstep the mark. It really is ludicrous to tell a coach that he cannot take a youngster home after practice in case of later implications of paedophilia. That is ludicrous. We must grow up and accept that people in sport can manage their lives very much more effectively than some of those in officialdom seem to think. So let us hope that the Government will encourage the various bodies to consider again their guidance and to make it more practical and relevant to 2005.
	I refer not only to health and safety aspects, but also to the fact that the Licensing Act passed by the Government in the last Session makes it almost impossible for a village hall to have a licence. The enormous cost cannot be borne, and that translates to sports clubs as well.
	It must be of some concern to the Government that 70 per cent of all children give up sport when they leave school against only 30 per cent in France. Part of the reason may be that in the United Kingdom, total funding for sport per head is £21. It is £30 in Germany, £51 in Australia, £76 in Canada and £112 in France. No wonder the French are so enthusiastic about the Olympics when they put so much into basic sports provision in their country.
	I want to mention the lottery. I am desperately disappointed in the Government's attitude to the lottery and in the new National Lottery Bill in another place. We cannot underestimate the immense value of Sir John Major's introduction of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Without it, the vast sums of money being spent on sports, recreation, the arts and our history would not be available. Yet as soon as the Government came to power in 1997, they started to change the basis on which lottery money could used. It was quite wrong to take money away from the main causes set out in the Act and give it to education, school meals—that I heard only just the other day—environmental purchases in Scotland and medical equipment, all of which should be provided by the Government through the taxpayer under the scheme of additionality. But this Government are reducing the money available to the original causes in the lottery Act in order to save the taxpayer money. It really is quite wrong, and I hope that when the new Bill comes to this House, we give it a mighty rough ride and perhaps get rid of some of the worst proposals the Government have included.
	I turn briefly to planning issues and school playing fields. In 2002–03, some 1,297 applications were made to change the use of school playing fields for development of one form or another. No fewer than 807 were approved. Thus some 62 per cent of those applications were approved by this Government at a time when they kept saying that they would avoid losing playing fields. Of course they will argue that some were being converted into all-weather pitches or that indoor facilities were to be provided, but by and large a huge number of playing fields have disappeared under this Government.
	Two committees have been appointed to look into this issue, but neither has reported since April 2003, so we are two years out of date on the figures that in any event the Government usually try to smudge whenever I table Questions on them. What are the Playing Fields Advisory Panel and the Playing Fields Monitoring Group doing? How many playing fields have they saved? I want to know because it is a criminal shame that we are losing so many perfectly good playing fields at this time. It is only through the good work of the National Playing Fields Association, which monitors as much as it can and highlights in the media what is happening, that we get even some degree of attention.
	I commend what I have read in the paper today, which is a good move on the part of Glasgow City Council. Although it is quite unusual for Glasgow, it is offering rate relief to sports fields provided that clubs alter their constitutions so that the fields cannot be sold for development. That is good, and I hope that many other councils will do the same thing.
	I must quickly conclude, but must ask: can we not do a little more to help women in sport? The Women's Sports Foundation does first-class work. Indeed, leading sportswomen of this country such as Kelly Holmes, Paula Radcliffe, Denise Lewis, Tanni Grey-Thompson and Ellen MacArthur are making the headlines, but women do not get equal opportunities on television. The media are letting the girls down in this country. I am lucky enough to visit America quite often, and there one sees any amount of women's sport on television. There is basketball, tennis, golf, athletics and rowing, all of which seem to be taken much more seriously than is the case in this country.
	Finally, I say to the Government: for goodness' sake, try to simplify life for people working in sport. They are fed up with the bureaucracy that the various governing bodies provide for them. Let us remove some of the red tape and put lottery money back into sport.

Lord Carter of Coles: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pendry for initiating this debate on what is an important issue to me as the chair of Sport England and in view of my involvement in a wide range of sporting activities, not least our bid to host the 2012 Olympics.
	Sport is one of the common denominators in our society. It reaches across the barriers of race, class and income. However, despite the fact that participating in sport makes people happier, healthier and builds good communities, we have to face the fact that it is difficult to move people into sport. Therefore, we have to look realistically at the barriers and what needs to be done to effect change. As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, observed, we must build a structure that begins with participation and then build the pathways through to the elite. We will not win in 2012 unless we get the basics right here.
	A lot has been done already and there is momentum in sport, as the daily coverage in the newspapers—and not just the reporting of football—shows. There is a momentum. Journalists are writing about sport. The effect of 2012 is enormous and is giving us the movement that we need.
	Understanding the barriers to participation in community sport is critical if we are to make a difference. Today, 77 per cent of children aged eight to 14 have a television in their room; computer games are prevalent, and children spend hours a day on them; and children are driven to school rather than walk. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that the forces of passivity are rampant. Some 80 per cent of children have bikes, but only 2 per cent ride them to school. So there is an issue.
	Secondly, the structure of society is changing. It is changing people's ability to find time in their busy lives. People's lives have changed dramatically. In many places, it is incredibly difficult to find 10 other people to make a football team on a Saturday afternoon. That is caused partly by our working practices. In the south-west of England, 36 per cent of the population work at the weekend because they are active in the tourism, leisure and retail industries and in caring. That makes the situation very difficult, but people are finding alternative ways. No longer do we have great workplace factories with playing fields. We are seeing a deconstruction in sport.
	These problems are common to most developed countries—Britain is not alone in facing them—but whereas participation levels are a challenge everywhere, we in Britain face a particular problem. We are behind our major international comparators, especially the northern European countries.
	The question of how that happened and what should be done to remedy it has been the subject of enormous debate. There have been various initiatives and the problem has been looked at, but the problem has existed over the years. Now, however, for the first time, we are beginning to get a clear understanding of what to do and the need to create diversified and diverse answers to these problems. There is not one central monolithic solution but a series of solutions.
	As other noble Lords have observed, we need to start at the beginning and look at the school sports system. As has been said, in the early 1980s and the 1990s, school sport went into a steep decline for a number of reasons. After 1997, however, the Government set about reversing that decline. With enormous effort in the late 1990s and enormous investment now, we have seen that decline reversed. Critically, the first plank in the sports system has been restored. The rotting floorboards have been torn up and we have something firm on which to build.
	Having addressed that issue and seen momentum, we now have to turn to what to do next. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, has rightly commented on the colossal drop-off after formal education. Some 60 to 65 per cent of those aged 11 to 15 participate in sport, but the figure drops to 25 per cent in the 16 to 24 age group. "Cliff effect" perhaps summarises the situation. Participation stays pretty flat thereafter until, like many noble Lords, people get into their sixties and are able to do a little less.
	The situation is the same in every country. Young people, especially young women, discover other pressures. People want to do other things. In Britain, however, we have a steeper drop-off rate. Finland, which has been very successful, has maintained participation at 52 per cent. Germany and Canada—and France, as has been observed—are all doing better than us. We are at 21 per cent and we need to do something about that.
	The key is to face up to the issue and not to be in denial about it. We have looked at international best practice and seen what works in other countries. We are setting about trying to create a systemic and systematic answer to the problem.
	Sport is full of initiatives. There is no end of schemes that act on one issue at a time. However, we are looking to design a system that can address the issue in a big way. The first thing we need to do is deal with the tide of passivity. We need to get proactive messages out there—the message that activity in sport is good. That is being done in Germany and Canada. In the north-east of England, a pilot called "Everyday Sport" is under way. The early indications are that the programme is starting to drive behaviour.
	However, it is no good coming up with initiatives that last a year or two after which the funding disappears. We need programmes that last long beyond one spending review settlement. The Germans have a very successful campaign called Sport ist Gut. It has run for 20 years and changed how people behave. In Canada, over 10 years, the Canada on the Move campaign and other campaigns have helped to increase participation in sport at the rate of 1 per cent a year. It is critical that we give people information. Investment in schemes such as Active Places and interactive databases for sports centres mean that young people can now go online, find out where the nearest facility is and go and participate.
	After we have that piece right and have the encouragement, we need to build the pathways. The critical pathway is from schools into communities and clubs. That has been referred to. Countries such as Germany have got that right over a longer period. Again, however, the Government recognise the need to do something about the issue. The increasingly successful programme of getting PE into schools and clubs—the PESSCL programme—is building those critical links, making sure that when people go from a very structured society in school into an unstructured world, there is a link for them to carry through.
	After we have got that right we have to find somewhere attractive for people to go and practise sport. Expectations have risen. People do not want to send their children to play on dog-fouled, dirty, waterlogged football pitches. They do not want to play themselves in such places. We expect better. In many parts of the country, that has been solved by investment, and in many parts of the country it has been private investment. Were it not for the nearly 1,800 private health care clubs that have been built in the past 10 years, participation rates in this country would have fallen back quite dramatically. Those private operators need all the encouragement they can get by relaxing planning to enable facilities to be built where they are needed—not where planners would like to put them but nobody would use them. That point requires attention.
	Community sport relies on volunteers. As we have heard, 26 per cent of all volunteers are engaged in sport. We need to find ways of encouraging—and the Russell commission is very strong and helpful on this—those who are prepared to volunteer.
	I should like to share an experience. Last Saturday, I went to a small football club in Hertfordshire called the Hormead Hares. Four years ago, four people got together in a rather run-down part of a village in a rural community. Between them, they have created 17 teams for children aged five to 16. It is a wonderful achievement. Two hundred children play there. There was no investment whatever; they built the pavilion themselves. But now they need help, and the help is there. They have applied to the Football Foundation and other organisations. The help is there, but we have to ensure that we get the money into the right hands. The point, however, is that it is these people who are changing things at the grassroots level and we need to support them.
	What happened in that community can be measured. First, the community came together to solve the problem. Secondly, there is evidence that crime was reduced. Thirdly, and most importantly, young people were given a sporting legacy. We need these clubs. We need the pathway from club to elite sport. Reference has been made to the TASS scheme and other such schemes. The interventions are being put in place to move people up that critical pathway.
	I have touched on the issue of infrastructure. In recent times, we have faced the problems of a decaying and crumbling sporting infrastructure. A lot was built in phases—some in the 1960s—and is now very old and needs replacing. At national level, there has been some success. We are building Wembley. There were beneficial effects from the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in terms not only of infrastructure but, above all, in regeneration. It is notable that east Manchester and the city have had a major boost from the effect of sport. And we hold high hopes for 2012 and what it will do not only for sport in this country but for regeneration in the east side of the city.
	At community level, a lot has been going on. People understand what is needed. I turn to the issue of playing fields. There is a lot of talk about playing fields. Grass playing fields' utilisation rates are relatively low. On a grass playing field you can play maybe three, four or five times a week, but the grass soon wears out. In urban areas that does not work and therefore we must get all-weather pitches where people can play for 70 and 80 hours a week. So it is not just the quantity, it is the type of playing field that we get. Sport England and other investors are concentrating on getting the right answers.
	However, despite all the investment that has taken place, we have the problem of ageing facilities in local government ownership. It is clear that unless we reignite local authorities as a major force in sport, there are parts of the country where there is market failure, where people go unserved. We must turn our attention to that. Discussions are under way to include the cultural block, of which sport is part, in the comprehensive performance assessment (CPA) mechanism, which guides local authorities' priorities. If it is not in there, it is not measured and local authorities tend not to pay it attention. We have to get this into a "must do" for local government.
	I will show you a sign of how far sport has fallen down local government priorities in some places. In a visit to a local authority the other day, they told me they had 154 KPIs—the measurement tools for local performance—and in their priority list sport was 132. We have to turn that round; we have to put sport higher up that list. The Government have set us a target of increasing participation in sport by 1 per cent a year. They have very clear views on elite success. Momentum has started; reforms have been taken through. UK Sport and Sport England have been reformed; governing bodies are reforming quite dramatically; so sport is on the move. The prize to give it that final boost is to win the bid for 2012. It will help us to continue to transform that landscape. We are now, I think, only 19 days away. We have high hopes.
	All those things coming together give us the opportunity to move people into happier, healthier, community-aware lives, and it is a challenge I think everybody in sport relishes.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, this afternoon I feel very much the club player among a glittering collection of former Olympians, but I think that we would all agree that most of us became sports enthusiasts in our early childhood. Equally we would agree that for every national hero there are thousands of players who compete simply for the love of the game and do not wish to become national achievers. As my noble friend Lord Monro said, it starts at the grassroots, from the bottom up, and is stimulated by the local community in what it has to offer. So it is through schools and clubs that we end up with elite sports.
	In modern parlance, "sports" covers many aspects. It is interesting that we have a sports Minister and not a games Minister. The dictionary, however, puts it the other way round—defining "game" as a "kind of sport", a "contest for recreation", or a,
	"competitive amusement according to a system of rules".
	But there can be no doubt that sports and games over many years have formed an important part of British life. The Middle Ages boasted of jousting, hunting and archery, the latter of which still attracts many people.
	But, since my early childhood, how times have changed within our sporting clubs and activities. Sport then was very much amateur, such as Wimbledon—which is coming up shortly—where all the players were amateurs and there were no professionals. Indeed, that degree of expertise and hope has altered the way in which young people regard sport today. They look to the professional players; they see the vast wages that many of the professional players have, and they look at the sponsor money that comes to those higher achievers.
	Equally, sport has produced for the Government a lot of money in its own right. It would be interesting if the Minister could tell the House how much money the Government receive in taxes every year from sporting activities. If we leave aside the gambling aspect, there must be hundreds of millions collected in corporation tax, VAT on ticket sales, income tax on the salaries of professional players, to say nothing of the more oblique income generated for the state from such things as fuel duty on sports-related travel.
	Can the Minister also tell us how much money is paid out by the state to support activities, and how much money for national activities comes from the lottery? Noble Lords have mentioned the lottery and I will return to it later.
	Money raising associated with sport is not confined to the Government. Many sporting heroes go to inordinate lengths to raise funds for charitable purposes as well as promoting their own sport. As I speak, a dedicated band of famous cricketers is leading the Ashes Walk. It left from the Rosebowl in Hampshire on Monday and will visit every one of the Test cricketing grounds in England and Wales in the time it takes to reach the end of the Ashes series. Anyone can walk part of the way with them for a fee and they are attracting sponsors. The funds raised will be used in particular to promote cricket in inner-city schools.
	Although I have a professional tennis-coaching qualification and at one time ran a tennis school, I propose to talk mainly about amateur sport and its impact. Most children at some stage enjoy playing sports that require some physical input, but some children are put off early at schools because they are not included in team games. But most of them will have the chance to play rounders in the playground, perhaps have the joy of being selected to represent the form in an egg-and-spoon race or a three-legged race, or to participate in the more structured competitions between schools and within the house groups of their own schools.
	Nor is it always necessary to get that enjoyment in team games. That is something I would like to talk about at greater length because predominantly noble Lords have talked about the bigger team games. I know of many young people who have revelled in cross-country running—something, certainly, that I did not wish to do—cycle racing, dressage or show jumping. There is a whole range of water sports as well as swimming. I pay tribute to the many volunteers other noble Lords have referred to who give of their time freely, week on week, who help to run pony club camps, Outward Bound—mentioned by my noble friend—and other activities.
	I would like to touch on an individual event, which can be a team event; namely, swimming. Recently my granddaughter was very proud that her school qualified for the national finals in a relay event in Sheffield. We went with no hopes of seeing any of them achieve a medal because the school is not known for its swimming. They managed to qualify for the final, in which they did their best but technically came in fifth. Much to their amazement and joy—and there is a lesson in this—they were raised to become third because there were two false starts by two of the teams. The lesson is that you should never give up because you might be a winner at the end of the day, and the lesson for the teams that lost out is that you should not cheat.
	Swimming is a sport in which many can participate who are not physically able to participate in some of the other sports that we have mentioned this afternoon. I give credit to all who help with disabled sports because they play an enormous role and have a great importance in the daily living not only of school children but also of people in later life. Our disabled athletes did wonderfully well in their competitions last year.
	Noble Lords have touched on one or two items that I find extremely worrying; that is, the question of litigation and the burden of legislation. For many volunteers who organise clubs and raise money, they have to get licences to do this or be qualified to do that. If they wish to have a fund-raising function, they have to seek a licence. Would it not be possible for some clubs to apply for a broader range of events to be qualified under one licence fee, rather than having to do it continuously? Obviously, that would save a lot of money.
	Secondly, on the whole question of getting somebody through the approval system when going through the criminal records, if somebody is already cleared and accepted as a suitable person to help with a particular thing, could that qualification not carry them through other things that they might be able to help with? Again, that is a cost and an extra responsibility—but it seems ludicrous if an individual has to have four or five different clearances through the bureau.
	On thinking about this debate earlier, one began to realise that sporting activities cut across many government departments, schools, universities, colleges, fitness clubs, fitness centres, Outward Bound activities, and regional and national activities. Our thoughts are focused on the 2012 Olympic Games, for which we hope that London's bid might be successful. But perhaps I am not the only one who fears that the Government failed in the first instance to put their full weight behind the UK application—a decision that may see the games going to Paris.
	I also criticise the Government for their stance on discouraging team sports in schools. It was said at the time that if no one can be a winner, no one should be a winner. That is rubbish; we know when we compete that we are not going to win every time, but if we are not actually allowed to compete in anything, however can we hope to be achievers? Other noble Lords have already spoken about school playgrounds; picking up on that, I must ask the Government if they will stop the closure of school playing fields. Although the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, suggested that many had closed during our term in office, they continue to be closed, and that cannot be allowed to continue.
	Sport and the exercise of the body is an important element in the development of a healthy body and mind. Obesity continues to be a problem, but to be a good athlete one needs to have a healthy and balanced diet. This week on Tuesday, I attended the launch of a charity called Farming and Countryside Education—FACE—here in London. Its aim is to tell young people about food, farming and the countryside within their own school setting, whether it is urban or rural-based. In doing so, we hope not only to encourage them to eat healthy food but to look forward to visiting the countryside. I am convinced that schools can and should do more; healthy eating and exercise, in my book, go together. We must give the new generation a better start in life.
	Equally this week I was interested to call in at VisitBritain, which had an exhibition downstairs earlier. Talking to that organisation's representatives, I heard them highlighting the opportunities that there are in the countryside throughout the UK to continue to enjoy sporting activities, whether it is walking, canoeing or—much more testing—hill climbing. There are many opportunities out there for us to have a go at.
	I am sure that this afternoon's debate will draw together fascinating contributions from so many who have had the joy and experience of sport. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for having introduced this debate. He, like others, will look forward to hearing the other contributions.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Pendry has secured this debate today. His support for sport of all kinds is well known. Indeed, I am surrounded by a wealth of talent from sporting spectrum. Many of us have already spoken in debates about the importance of sport, and today gives us the opportunity to relate that to sport in local communities—which in turn can improve aspiration and achievement.
	This morning we discussed in your Lordships' House the issue of arts and regeneration in urban settings—at least, two of us did. While sport and regeneration is not strictly on the agenda today, I should like to make a brief reference to how sport has helped to regenerate communities by bringing in new industry and new building. I am thinking in particular of Manchester, as an unprejudiced northerner; in Manchester, the new sports building for the Commonwealth Games was successfully blended with the industrial landscape, including canals, railway arches and embankments, to create a truly beautiful and impressive new landscape for the city. I hope that if London is selected to host the 2012 Olympics, the lessons will be learnt from that. The people of Manchester are proud of the reconstruction of their city thanks to sport.
	I know, too, that this debate is about achieving sporting excellence, of which I am all in favour. But I should also like to emphasise the importance of sport in communities for fun, fitness and social interaction, though other noble Lords have spoken about that already. We worry about obesity and people not being fit. Everyone who does sport is not going to be a champion or play team games, but that does not preclude them from enjoying sport. Sport is important if it encourages exercise for fitness; I follow on in that from what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said—not that I would agree necessarily that learning to lose is a positive thing. I would rather that people kept fit.
	Activities such as walking, yoga, pilates and so on, are increasingly offered in communities, and gym membership is increasing. It would be helpful if schools and facilities for young people, of which there are not enough, would encourage young people to enjoy some sort of physical activity, in which perhaps excellence is not achieved but being good enough is. More people taking part in sport at any level seems a worthy ambition, as well as excellence.
	Sport can have a positive impact on communities in relation to social behaviour. For example, the Karrot scheme in Southwark is a crime diversion project at the Elephant and Castle leisure centre. It was piloted as a half-term sports activity programme, with more than 120 young people attending. Since the summer, regular sessions have been held for basketball, athletics, cricket and football. However, where excellence is possible it should clearly be supported. Sporting excellence starts at the grassroots—or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would say, at the bottom—which usually means in the community, be it in a school or a club. It needs facilities, coaching and enthusiasm from the community.
	I want to use cricket as an example of how that excellence can be built up—and I declare an interest as a Lady Taverner. That organisation raises money for young people with disabilities to play sport. And yes, I shall be walking for the Ashes. The England and Wales Cricket Board and the Cricket Federation are carrying out specific programmes to encourage the game at all levels, for men and women and boys and girls. The England and Wales Cricket Board's strategic plan, which is called "Building Partnerships" has a key objective of encouraging participation, especially among young people. It includes commitment to delivering a centre of cricketing excellence within 30 miles of 85 per cent of the population of England and Wales by 2009. It seeks to increase the number of school and coaching sessions to 20,000 by 2009 and to implement a £5 billion England and Wales Cricket Board interest-free loan for the development of cricket facilities.
	The BBC sports competitions have involved 100,000 children in 6,000 schools in cricket; more than 14,000 clubs in communities have given rise to 333 accredited trainers; £9.4 million has been invested in focus clubs to improve facilities for young people; lottery money has been put into primary schools; and the "Chance to Shine" scheme aims to regenerate cricket in state schools by providing £50 million over 10 years for facilities, equipment and coaching.
	I turn to the matter of volunteers. Cricketforce was a community-based programme in which volunteers spent significant time and money—around £15 million to £20 million—to undertake major renovations of clubhouses and grounds. More than 665 clubs all over the country took part involving some 50,000 people.
	Other development initiatives from the England and Wales Cricket Board involve primary school activities such as Kwikcricket, Howzat, a teaching and learning programme, and the Pride Side, aimed to encourage children aged six and over to have an interest in cricket. In secondary schools, that is intercricket (also played in cricket summer schools and coaching programmes) and a county cricket programme for disabled players that has been set up with substantial funding.
	For more talented players there are 800 district squads, 34 county squads, nine cricket academies and, of course, the national academy for cricket, which has improved the game enormously. There is, thus, a pathway from grassroots to senior level. In addition, local communities organise themselves into cricket squads of various kinds.
	These cricket initiatives are unprecedented in recent times and are doing much to improve performances in competitive cricket at county and national level. Getting Australia out for 79 is not a bad start. Somerset beating Australia yesterday is not a bad start either.
	I believe that schools are crucial in discovering and fostering talent. Many young people would not have discovered that they had a talent for sport if it had not been for their school. So, I want to ask the Minister a general question about support for health-related fitness in schools and for the chance to play sport. Are we giving enough time and encouragement to school sport? Are we providing enough facilities and coaches?
	I believe that sport and the arts—two subjects covered by our debates today—are vital to the life of a civilised society. We should encourage appreciation and participation from an early age in all communities both for their own sakes and to combat anti-social behaviour and encourage regeneration.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Pendry for initiating and introducing this debate today. His commitment to sport both in this House and in the other place is very well known to us all. His experience and knowledge are outstanding.
	We have a glittering array of speakers here today, showing the strength of interest that they have in this topic. As this is a sporting debate, I say at the outset that mine will be a speech of two halves. I shall deal with the "now", both in general terms and with specific reference to tennis, which provides us with a clear model as designed by a major governing body, and then with my view of the future and how sport could and should be organised nationally.
	My noble friend is so right to welcome the Government's positive commitment to the place of sport in our society. Picking up in 1997 when the profile of sport, and particularly the place of sport in the lives of young people, was depressingly low, we see a major turnaround in the importance our Government have given to the promotion of sport in its widest sense.
	Perhaps all the publicity about obesity in adults and children has helped focus attention on more active lifestyles. That in turn has made us look critically at the diminished sport on offer in the school curriculum for all our youngsters. Thus health, sport and education have become inextricably linked. That development is to be welcomed.
	However, whenever I speak about sport I always remind my listeners that sport is so much more than that. It can transform lives by creating a lifelong involvement in a specific activity and as such is a crucial ingredient in promoting social inclusion. And, of course, sport is fun. Thus all the initiatives that my noble friend so clearly outlined fall into context in the overall blueprint to create a sporting nation. Of course, by creating the widest possible grassroots participation we are well on course to create sporting excellence. From that success flows the spur to emulate our sporting heroes. We need those role models to galvanise future generations.
	Like my noble friend Lord Pendry I welcome and acknowledge the huge injection of funds to facilitate our sporting expansion. Money for school sport, the setting up of centres of excellence and the encouragement of local clubs to become community amateur sports clubs are all invaluable and are already bearing fruit. The support for the British Olympic bid cannot be underestimated. Could there be a more public commitment to sport than a Government giving the bid the most outstanding backing from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister? No nation could have had more wholehearted commitment brilliantly led by the noble Lord, Lord Coe.
	I turn to a sport that is close to my heart—tennis. Government thinking is being echoed by the governing bodies with shared ambition to create an inclusive, vibrant and successful sporting nation.
	I start with the LTA and its determination to produce more and better players. To that end it is pledged to increase the number of juniors playing tennis by 5 per cent a year, to modernise a vibrant network of clubs and to identify, develop and support the most talented players and achieve six players in the world top 100 by 2009. That is all entirely worthwhile. Those pledges are backed by "heavy" money coming not only from the LTA's source, the All England Championships, but additionally, and for the first time, from a very sizeable injection of government money to the tune of £16.5 million over the next four years.
	The tennis club where I play constitutes a "village" with young and old playing side by side. It is a safe environment. Parents are assured of children's well-being. Like all habits—even good ones—the tennis habit once established can go on and on. That is why the LTA is focusing on clubs as the vehicle for development. Thus loans, grants and schemes linking clubs, schools and communities are at the top of the LTA's priorities. Alongside and additional to clubs the LTA is providing a framework for getting youngsters started. The first city tennis club in Hackney opened in 2001. There are now 28 such clubs nationwide and more than 25,000 kids a week are receiving coaching through the scheme. As has already been said, coaches are absolutely key to success. The LTA is creating more career opportunities to ensure that coaching standards rise and that all coaches are licensed to provide better protection for youngsters.
	Sports colleges are the cornerstone of the Government's sporting package and the LTA has invested £1.5 million in creating indoor and outdoor facilities at those centres. Equally important is the need to upgrade tennis teaching skills in our schools. In the past academic year, 1,750 primary school teachers, 550 secondary school teachers and 750 students attended tennis courses. Their forehands can only get better.
	While that LTA programme looks rosy, it is not without its critics. Tennis is still seen as a middle-class, elitist activity. So Tennis for Free has stepped into the ring in the form of Tony Hawks and his allies in a campaign to open up under-used and often run-down public park courts, refurbish them and offer coaching free of charge on a regular basis. Pilot schemes are already up and running in Merton and they are very successful. There is support from the LTA but not for the "for free" concept. That argument is yet to be resolved but as a believer in creative conflict, I know that both sides are wholeheartedly working for the better future of tennis.
	I heard Billie-Jean King this morning endorsing the "for free" concept, especially as her illustrious career began on public courts in California. Indeed, here we are on the threshold of a new generation of young stars. We all looked with delight at Andy Murray last week at the Stella Artois tournament at Queen's. I am telling you; he is the real deal. He is the best technically that I have seen for years. He is also not what we are used to. He is fiery, thank heavens. As for his mother Judy, she is something else. I have known her for years and always admired her feisty play even when pitched against us at Oxfordshire at county week. Noble Lords may recall that for years Judy Murray was the Scottish number one. Well, there will be no more stiff upper lips from this tennis mum. A moment I will cherish at Queen's last week was when Andy fell down for the first time is of Judy shouting, "Get up and play!". That's my girl!
	I hope that the media will treat Andy better than they have treated Tim Henman. Tim has been quite wonderful; his record of 10 years in the top 10 is unparalleled in any other major sport in this country; yet he has been derided as a loser. It has hurt the player both on and off court and it has been unforgivable. So, just in case anyone in the media is listening today, could we ask for fair treatment? Do not build a player up and then take pleasure in knocking him down. In that respect, let us become American or French; let us support and sustain our players through their highs and lows. That way, we could just have some stars in the making.
	That is enough of the now; what of the future? Before making an argument for radical change in the way that sport is run in this country, I offer a few facts. Here, I echo the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, because a good statistic is always worth repeating. In the UK, the Government spend £21 per capita; Germany spends £30 per capita; Australia spends £51 per capita; and France spends £112 per capita. The Prime Minister was quoted earlier this year saying that the Government do not run sport and nor should they. I may challenge that. The result of that strategy is that for decades successive governments have taken totally reactive responses to sport. Their strategy has been piecemeal, and the provision of even basic sporting facilities is a total lottery. Some far-sighted local authorities have taken it upon themselves to provide more than their mandatory obligations; others considerably less.
	What makes a child take up sport? First, it is the introduction from family. In fact, children with mothers who take part in sport are 80 per cent more likely to take up sport themselves. An early introduction to sport through primary schools is sadly often offered by a reluctant junior member of staff with little or no physical education training. Crucially, proximity to facilities is important; living nearby within either walking or cycling distance to a club greatly enhances the likelihood of take-up. Thus clubs in urban areas, often fairly small, must be given protection from "nimbys" and encouragement to upgrade their facilities. In rural areas some parish councils take good responsibility, but the myth that children in villages have plenty of space in which to exercise and play is totally unfounded. They often have less formal and informal open space at their disposal.
	I have laid out my prejudices. What proposals do I offer to the Prime Minister to transform the situation? First, let us be clear that there must be a Cabinet place for the Sports Minister, as sport in all forms and for many reasons is at the top of the agenda, the Minister must be able to influence Cabinet thinking not as some add-on later outside. Secondly, let us deal fundamentally with provision, not only of facilities but coaches, sport in schools and with volunteers within the sporting matrix. Let us take stock of the per capita funding outlined earlier. In other words, though it grieves me to say it, in this aspect France is right.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to look at the responsibilities and suggestions that I have made. Unless we do so, there will be a high price to pay. For radical change to happen we must have a political consensus. I am suggesting a sporting revolution. Would one way of achieving that consensus be to set up a Royal Commission for sport? All sides of the argument could have a say and perhaps lay the foundation for a most profound change. That way forward lies our success.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for securing this debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, said in her contribution, before this debate some of us had been taking part in another debate about the arts and their role in regenerating communities. I start linking those by declaring an interest in both those subjects. I am currently chairing an inquiry in Manchester funded by the Whitbread Foundation, whose terms of reference are,
	"to encourage decision makers to maximise the contribution that the arts and sport can make to encourage young people to engage in work, education and training".
	It is important to remember in generating interest among our young people in becoming citizens of the country that the contribution that both the arts and sport have to make to that process should be linked and encouraged.
	The five-year plan for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport "Living Life to the Full" includes the sentence:
	"We know that sport can help to reduce crime, increase social inclusion, build sustainable communities and address inequalities".
	Of the two phrases that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, used about the game plan of increasing international success or increasing participation, I will concentrate on increasing participation, because that is what I am looking at in particular in the context of Manchester. I confirm the remarkable change that has come about in Manchester as a result of the Commonwealth Games. It has provided an impetus and an inspiration for Manchester that is tangible and touches many things other than sport.
	In another place on 20 July 1910, Winston Churchill, summing up a debate on prison estimates, urged everyone to have,
	"an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man".
	The only raw material that every nation has in common is its people. Woe betide it if it does not do everything that it can to identify, nurture and develop the talents of its people. By that I mean all its people. Nowhere is that process more appropriate than in sport.
	The subject of the debate is "sporting excellence". What Manchester has done about that has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. I should like to refer to the deliberate effort of Manchester City Council and Manchester Leisure to start a process whereby individuals could have talent identified in the community or at school that could be taken forward to international level. That came up with an idea of the talent identification being matched by provision in 11 sports, up to and including international level, because it was backed up by mentors or experts at all levels and backed up by facilities. In other words, the marriage of facilities and facilitators at all levels enabled each of them to be accommodated. Particularly important in that were a large number of sports clubs, which had a role wider than providing the sports facility, because they provided a social context in which the people taking part developed relationships among themselves that went outside and beyond the playing field.
	Having succeeded in that, they have continued the process in two areas, first in leisure and adventure activities in parks, making canoeing and rock climbing and so on available; and secondly in 1995 they moved on to reach those in care and foster homes and those refugees and asylum seekers who were coming into Manchester to make certain that all their talents were identified. Instead of sporting clubs they developed community clubs in which those partaking in those activities could follow that up with social relationships as well.
	In addition, to make sure that funding was available to help out and that people did not always have to go into that extraordinary drawn-out procedure of trying to apply for government money—which can take many months—they set up a contingency fund in Manchester so that bright ideas could be instantly financed and sustained, because the one lesson that seems to have come out of all this is the need to break away from annuality in those developments and have three-to-five-year funding to make sure that they be continued.
	Among all that there is a remarkable figure whose name has already been mentioned: Geoff Thompson. He was born in Manchester: his father died when he was five, he came to south London with his mother, where, having a Manchester accent, he was picked on by people in south London. We can imagine the result: fighting and activities that are now called anti-social, which ended up with Thompson in a young offender establishment. He there came into contact with a Japanese karate instructor. We now fast forward to Geoff Thompson, captain of the Great Britain gold medal-winning karate team, having developed what he was inspired to do by someone he met in a young offender institution.
	He then considered, if sport had been the way that had lifted him out of the trough he was in, what could he do to enable others to do the same. So he formed something called the Youth Charter for Sport, Culture and the Arts and went to look for mentors to go into the hard areas of Manchester to try to encourage people out of it. I first met him in a prison outside Manchester recruiting sportsmen from prison whom he felt would be easily able to relate to the people whom he wished to attract.
	We then fast forward a bit further to Geoff Thompson being awarded an MBE for his work in helping to promote the Commonwealth Games. Geoff Thompson is now an agent for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, one hopes building on all those activities in the city, recognised by the people at the bottom who are causing all the trouble as someone who has come there and done it.
	To me that emphasises the importance of role models, and particularly sporting role models among our young. We must not underestimate their potential for weaning people into leading useful, law-abiding and healthy lives with social responsibility. I am fascinated how, in all this process, I find marvellous work being done by Manchester City football club and tremendous work being done by the Bradford Bulls rugby league club among that ethnic cocktail in Bradford. There is also a development by Chelsea, working with Youth at Risk, to develop sport not just as sport itself but also the lessons for life that come from team games, discipline, fitness and integrating with others.
	Therefore I feel very much that sporting excellence has a role in developing social responsibility that should not be ignored. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mention the role of the private sector. I should like to commend him not just for the marvellous work of Sport England but for the work that his regional representatives do around the country. It is helping hugely.
	When thinking of social responsibility one can also think of corporate social responsibility and the role that the corporate organisations in communities have in developing those communities. I would like to see in all the programmes and plans that are made the government part including the corporate sector in the partnership of those people who are providing the facilities for helping people through this life.
	I believe firmly that the importance of developing sport in local communities is not only what it does for those communities and those who live in them but what it does for the future. That future is pressed on by concentrating on sporting excellence as driving up the standard of everything, so we could say that sporting excellence is a way to community excellence.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, let me first join the queue and thank my noble friend Lord Pendry for initiating the debate. I must register an interest in that this week I became a member of the board of the Football Foundation; or at least I believe I did. I had something of a misspent youth: when I was at school I played a lot of snooker. In my defence it was in a local temperance hall, but my teacher said, "You'll never get into university".
	When I got to university I played even more squash, and my tutor said, "You'll never go on to postgraduate work". When I went on to postgraduate work I chose to write a dissertation on the sociology of sport, which was not the thing to do in those days. I was at the London School of Economics, and if one was at the London School of Economics one studied work, not sport and leisure. My supervisor said, "You'll never get to teach in a university". When I got to teach in a university I sustained the interest in sport that I developed as a graduate student because sport makes a massive difference to people's lives. It matters an awful lot to an awful lot of people.
	We live in a world that is rapidly changing, that is marked by the intersection between the global and the local. Nothing is a clearer exposition of that than sport, especially football. If we look at the last World Cup, the statistics are amazing. If I were to ask noble Lords how many people watched the last World Cup on television, you might not be able to tell me, but the number was 28.8 billion people over the 25 days during which the contest unfolded: four times the population of the world.
	The 2002 Cup Final was watched by 1.1 billion people simultaneously: the most-watched event in the whole of human history. I do not know whether one is allowed to tell jokes in the House of Lords, but if I am excommunicated it was very nice to know you all. A man arrives at the gates of heaven and St Peter is waiting for him. He says: "I'm afraid I can't let you in unless you've done something either extraordinarily good or brave". The man reflects and says, "Yes, I did do something brave: I used to be a football referee. I was refereeing an important game between Liverpool and Everton. The score was 0-0; it was at Anfield; there was one minute to go and I gave a penalty against Liverpool at the Kop End". St Peter says, "That was indeed brave. When did this happen?"; and the man says, "Three minutes ago".
	Sport is inspirational and aspirational. We cannot say that of many of our activities. That gives sport a fabulous transformative power. In the bulk of what I have to say I would like to discuss how far the transformative power of sport can be harnessed to social objectives and concentrate especially on the connection between sport and social exclusion. If we cannot solve some of the problems of social exclusion, we will not achieve the excellence in sport that this country needs.
	It is important to recognise that the Government have been active on that front as have been a number of other voluntary organisations. In 1999, a study was carried out by the University of Loughborough on sport and social exclusion. It was commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and was fastened on to by the Social Exclusion Unit in No. 10. It became the basis of PAT 10—Public Action Team 10—which came up with a range of important proposals for utilising sport as a means of regenerating communities and overcoming social divisions. One also has to mention the communities action programme that Sport England has initiated.
	Social exclusion is not the same as poverty. It is a better concept than poverty, because poverty is only one form of social exclusion. Social exclusion is whatever separates us from the mainstream of social life. I would like to comment briefly on three areas of social exclusion in relation to the role of sport. One is economic differences. Poorer people in this country participate far less in sport than more affluent people. The second is gender differences, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monro. Women participate less in sporting and physical activities in the UK than men, which is not true in some other countries. The third is the question of most of us sitting or sleeping here— older people. Older people also fare poorly in sporting statistics in this country. Only 21 per cent of men and 18 per cent of women in this country do the recommended 30 minutes of exercise, four days a week, which is an appalling statistic.
	Briefly, what can one do in those three areas? On the role of sport in regenerating communities and overcoming social divisions, the Government must recognise—as must anyone involved in the administration of sport, such as my noble friend Lord Carter—that sport often accentuates social divisions. It represents wider social divisions. To say that sport can simply and easily overcome them is disingenuous and false. I spent a lot of my life in Cambridge, which is radically divided in terms of sports facilities. The colleges have an amazing range of grounds for all kinds of sports. On the other side of town, you have a few recreation grounds for the whole of the rest of the town.
	We know that sport is divisive, too. If you are a Tottenham supporter, who do you hate most? You should know if you come from north London. We were all brought up to hate either the Arsenal or Tottenham depending on which side of the fence we were on. Those communities that are closest often tend to have most animosity, so sport divides as well as integrates.
	Nevertheless, we know that sport can play a major role in community regeneration. The work of PAT 10 and Sport England is important on that. We have learnt that sport—like the arts, discussed this morning—has to be integrated with community development programmes. You cannot simply have sport as an add-on factor. To have a positive effect, you have to use sport and what I described as its aspirational and inspirational qualities in direct conjunction with a range of other programmes.
	By now, we know how that can be successful. For example, the Leyton Orient community sports scheme works in Tower Hamlets and a couple of other deprived communities. It has been very successful, because the people involved have not just sent one or two footballers down for the odd Sunday afternoon when they are not fully employed. They have been involved in a detailed and continuous way with leaders and ordinary people in the community. They speak regularly to teachers, doctors, business leaders and many others in the local community. You must engage in a positive way with the whole community.
	What about gender divisions, which are so important to sporting activity and the health of the nation? I looked at some material on the United States, which is really interesting compared to the UK. The United States has a significant organisation in its centre for research on girls and women in sport. I do not think that we have something wholly analogous here, but we probably should. The organisation is practical as well as intellectual. In the United States—not wholly because of that organisation—you have a massive surge in women's participation in sport and physical activities, so that the statistics there look very different from those here. There, more women than men take part in sport and physical activity—55 million women compared to 43 million men.
	We should aim for the same thing. There are problems, because class division again expresses itself through sport. Poor women in the United States are especially subject to obesity and other illnesses associated with lack of physical activity. There is a major class division to be overcome there, as in this country. If we cannot overcome such divisions, we will not be able to mobilise the power of sport.
	Finally, I turn to older people, including most of us sitting here. A lot of discussion of older people in this country has been about pensions and, in many of them, older people are treated as a problem. Why should we not treat older people as a solution? In our own lives, why should we not treat ageing as a positive process, not just a negative one? Of course ageing is a physical phenomenon and is, in some degree, inescapable. However, studies of ageing recently are extremely interesting. They show that, on the latest estimate, about 40 per cent of the ageing process in the body is the result of not taking exercise and the accumulation of bodily fat that results.
	Fauja Singh started running aged 81. He ran his first London Marathon aged 89, and has since run five of them. He is well into his 90s. Last weekend, he was due to be running in a relay marathon in Edinburgh. His team of five people had a total age of 400 years. Whether they won the event, I do not know.
	I come into the House quite a few days and see the coat hooks, which I think remind us all so much of our school days. We are all older people. I would like to come into the House in two years from now and see far more tracksuits than sticks hanging on the hooks, and I would like to see that to be as true of noble Baronesses as of noble Lords.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall take my first comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham. This is a debate on which there is actually little difference between us when we look at what is going on. One of the most worrying things about such debates is the fact that we agree with each other. We can go back and talk about the problems and why sport is in this state today. The "he said, she said" debate with which we started does not really help us, because the fact is that in 1997 sport was in a mess. That was the unintentional consequence of certain things that happened, particularly in the schools sector under the Conservative government.
	However, the development that has undoubtedly helped us to reconstruct sport—the lottery—was done under the Conservative government. It has been raided by everyone ever since. That started with the Conservatives when they expanded the initial number of causes and set the precedent. If we can all take from the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, the idea of growing up and working together because there is not that much between us, we will get a little further.
	I say that in the full knowledge that the recent publication of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, was almost exactly the same in tone and emphasis as our party's recently constructed policy. That is probably because we spoke to the same people; much will come down to that. Also, many of the problems that it points out are ones that we experienced. Politicians are an incredibly bad group to talk about sport. We like to talk about misery, expenditure and 126 or 127 local government priorities. You cannot "coffin wave" about social services. The proposal that a group of us tried to put through, but were stopped, at our party conference was trying to link sport to health, taking the healthcare budget and getting someone big and powerful behind you to push the issue up the agenda. We should use the Westminster model of, "We want our Bill". It did not happen. There are universal problems and if we in this place are interested, we can achieve something.
	Creating a great deal of fuss over the mess that sport was in has raised its political agenda. That included the arguments about playing fields. We realise that they are still being sold off and ask what is happening. But then you address the education budget and say, "Well we do not need the playing field for educational purposes, so let's get rid of it". If you are an education person, that is unarguable. I shall try to return to the subject of local sport, but the fact is that school sports fields were where virtually every amateur sports club held its first fixture. They were free of dog mess, you could play rugby on them without fear of losing an eye through infection and they were better maintained than the public park.
	The public park is a second option, but is one element of an issue where everything must be brought together. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, fairly pointed out to me, as Sport England did a few months ago, that we do not just need playing fields any more, because artificial surfaces are good. That is fine until you all want to play on them at the same time. One large field can be marked out for several different sports and you can have many matches, including rugby and football, happening at different times. You cannot do that with greater investment in just one pitch. One needs an area on the ground where people can take part in organised sporting activities at a similar time.
	One important factor has stopped sporting activity going into free fall in this country. Privately funded and owned amateur sports clubs have filled the gap. That is particularly true in our traditional sports of rugby, football and cricket, where a group of people have gathered together, purchased a ground and maintained it themselves. They have done that with virtually no government assistance. We have only recently started giving them taxation breaks—something that my noble friend Lord Phillips has been instrumental in—by gathering a group of us together.
	As a political class, we have not taken a grip on what sport can do. We must all pay attention to it. Half of the errors in this field would not have been made if the people in political parties and their opponents had coherently, without being too partisan, pointed out what would happen. We all share blame for the problems and thus we can all take credit for a few of the improvements. If we continue to push forward on a united front, this House, whose great strength as a revising Chamber is dealing with fine detail, will have a greater responsibility for action in that field than even another place. We must address this as a group.
	The recent publication from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, pointed out wonderfully on page 224 how funding followed a "drunken spider's map". It is a simplified version. It looks like a madman has tried to travel between two points. Funding chases around itself for alternative sources and different departments become involved. That is without taking into account the internal politics of sport, involving the established "old boy" set-ups—the blazer brigade who defend their own territory and refuse to accept outside intervention. That world must be taken by the scruff of the neck and shaken hard.
	Key factors must be addressed. One is that people drop out of sport at an alarmingly higher rate after leaving school in our society than virtually anywhere else. Part of that may be the historical problems that I have mentioned, but one of the main problems is that we have never fully developed the link between club and school. Everyone now agrees with that. The only disagreement that I have come across here in recent years is that when people say "school sport", I would say "school age sport". No single model will fit all. You should probably start by considering local circumstances.
	I hope that we will always remember that the traditional second-rate public school model of playing for your school definitely does not work. It never did. As a student in Aberdeen, I was astounded by the number of ex-schoolboy rugby internationals who never wanted to see another rugby ball again the minute they got away from that school environment, because they did not want to play the game. They were just good athletes who were told that that was their prestige sport. We must ensure that people play a sport because they want to play it and we must allow them to sample enough sports within the cultural environment to find out which one is theirs.
	Noble Lords have spoken about whether new sports such as tennis should be tried, as the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, mentioned. It is traditionally one of the most class-ridden sports in Great Britain. We must try to introduce that game as not being something that most people watch for, say, six weeks of the year. I was about 12 before I realised that tennis was played outside the Wimbledon forum. The sport must be made available and not be an interaction whereby you nick the balls from public parks. We must take it further and we are doing better.
	Indeed, the great bug-bear for child activity is the interesting concept, the "rampant passivity" that was mentioned by a noble Lord. The flip-side of having a TV in every room is that people see other sports and realise that there are other things out there. We must maintain pressure on all the broadcasters to show that other sports are there. Ensuring that the final of the European women's final for football was on television and that women could go out there and play this game was a great achievement. The gender gap is not there. It has been knocked aside.
	What is required to achieve higher levels of participation in sport? I have no time to mention levels of excellence, other than the fact that they do not sit as well with amateur and local sport as you might think, because it may never experience excellence if that is being selected and taken away at an early age. If you know at 16 that you are a potential champion, you probably do not want to play in your local first-11 or 15, or the local tennis tournaments. You want to play with the other elite kids of your age.
	We must ensure that participation levels are increased by making sure that people have access to knowledge about sports as well as playing the sports themselves—probably in that order. It must be seen as a positive model. Government must ensure that we simplify the stream and that it is more integrated into our society—either as an educational or a health benefit because sport needs something hard pushing at it. I fully accept that the arts may be similar and might achieve many of the same things in terms of social welfare. Sport has shown itself to be too diverse and inward looking to push itself to the top of the agenda.
	Government must put sport into the political process so that it can obtain the prestige to bring itself to the forefront. Unless we can find a way forward, we will come back and talk again and again. It will happen every time the next fad or fashion pushes sport to the back of the agenda, or when a degree of complacency creeps in. It has happened in the past and, unless we watch out, it will happen again.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for introducing this debate. He has been a friend of sport for many years. He and I met through our lives in sport. At the time, he was in politics and I was still in sports administration, many more years ago than he would care for me to tell your Lordships, but it was at least 30.
	Sport is an area in which I have had a lifelong interest. In line with what other noble Lords have said, it has certainly played a significant role in shaping my life from the age of about 13 until this very day, when I find myself still involved, and enjoying the involvement, in sport and in sport administration.
	We are all aware that the Olympic Games are very topical at the moment, as we wait to hear the result of the 2012 bids on 5 July. In the last debate on sport in your Lordships' House, I and many other noble Lords supported the Government strongly in their efforts and chided them maybe for not getting in behind the bid strongly enough. However, I believe their performance has improved and we hope that we are successful.
	I am a little disappointed that, heading into the final straight, we are in only the silver medal spot at the moment. I put that down to the Government's somewhat indolent attitude when they first started to get the ball moving, as one or two noble Lords have indicated. However, having seen the time that it took HMG to get under way on this major project, I do not have a great deal of confidence in their commitment to promoting, supporting and funding sport at local level.
	I turn to the broader issue of sport in communities, which I have always felt is, or should be, cross-departmental and, therefore, in need of a clear, firm strategy. That has been reflected by other noble Lords. I suggest that sport, its effects and consequences, have repercussions for three main departments: first, the Department for Education and Skills, with its remit for the physical education and recreation of those in schools and colleges; secondly, the Home Office, which has to tackle a growing number of youths receiving ASBOs for causing trouble on the streets and similar problems; and, lastly, but certainly not least important, the Department of Health, which is fighting a losing battle against the problems caused by obesity in children, with the ramifications that that has for our society as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, made some very interesting points both for the young and for older people.
	One would have thought that with such a large organisational task, Her Majesty's Government would be practising the joined-up government approach which I have spoken about on at least two occasions in your Lordships' House in debates on sport and about which we hear so much, and yet there does not seem to be any clear strategy at all—in fact, quite the opposite.
	It cannot be stated too strongly that advances made in promoting and facilitating sport at a local level will have a knock-on effect and will save money across all departments. If our young people were given the promised extra two hours of sport a week—two years ago I was promised that in a debate—they would be less likely to be obese, they would have less time on their hands to cause trouble in the streets, and I suggest they would have more energy in the classroom, with perhaps less energy to get into mischief afterwards. Can the Minister give us some indication of whether HMG have a coherent policy or action plan working across departments? From where I am standing, that does not seem to be so.
	Furthermore, if one examines the Government's efforts over the past eight years, one is struck by a complete failure to make even the smallest impact on the problem nationally. There has been initiative after initiative. This afternoon, we have heard of a number of individual initiatives, but where are the positive national results? As the title of this debate makes very clear, only by focusing on the development and support of sport at a local level can we hope to achieve the kind of sporting excellence to which we should aspire.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, gave us a very clear resumé of where we should be going. I hope that the Government take note of the chairman of Sport England.
	I have one positive thing to say about the Government's programme. I have been reading with interest about the so-called "Kelly hours" that will enable young people to be dropped off at school earlier and picked up later in the day. That will enable parents to work longer hours and allow young people to enjoy such activities as free sports coaching, which is a great idea. However, as I read the articles in the newspapers I had a strange sense of déjà vu. On re-reading the Conservative Party election manifesto, I came across this passage:
	"We will give every child the right to two hours of after-school sport with our Club2School programme, at no cost to parents".
	That begs the question: what is Ruth Kelly's bedtime reading?
	I shall say something else positive about the Government's approach to sport. They are not shy of throwing money at the problem. I say "throwing money", but I should probably say "promising money". In his keynote speech to the Labour Party conference in 2000, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, said:
	"Today we set out plans to invest £750 million of lottery money in schools and community sport as part of a £1 billion investment over three years".
	I have to admit that that sounded promising. Further, on 1 March 2002, Richard Caborn, the Minister for Sport, said of the £750 million New Opportunities Fund money:
	"I have told the new opportunities fund that I want some fast-tracking in the distribution of the £750 million for school sport: I want things to start happening by the summer".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/05; col. 999.]
	Clearly, we were being led to believe that the money is there and the Government are keen to spend it. However, by 8 January 2004—not very long ago—just £8.5 million of the £750 million had been spent. Noble Lords will find that in Lords Hansard, 8 January 2004. Can the Minister tell us why not? It cannot be because the Government think that the money is not needed and that there is not a problem in this area. If that were the case, why promise the money at all? As my noble friend Lord Moynihan, the then shadow Minister for Sport, put it in a statement on 14 December 2004, only seven months ago:
	"We welcome Labour's announcement supporting more sport in our schools. However, Tony Blair's Government have consistently failed to deliver on school sport in the past seven years, so why should we believe his promises now? . . . Since 1997, participation in sport has gone down and we have the highest rates of childhood obesity in Europe. Despite all Labour's manifesto commitments, our children are still losing out on vital sporting opportunities. Announcing sports policy is one thing, having the commitment to implement it is quite another".
	I do not believe that anything has changed very much.
	The Government need to address this policy now. They need action, where before we had only words and initiatives. We need answers from them as to why they are holding back from committing these promised funds. If, as I have just argued, only a fraction of the £750 million lottery funds have been invested, can we imagine that a similar proportion of the promised total £1 billion has been distributed? Of the money that has been invested, what transparency has there been to show that the money is filtering down to sport at local and grassroots levels? I fear that it may simply fuel the new sports bureaucracy rather than making any real difference to our young people and communities.
	Under this Government and their predecessors, bureaucracy has burgeoned in sport. We now have nine regional sports bodies, nine regional sports councils and nine regional institutes for sport. One body, UK Sport, funds our elite athletes and another, Sport England, funds the sports development programmes. Tessa Jowell herself has admitted that it is a nightmare. We need an overhaul, as my noble friend from the Liberal Democrat Benches said, of these bodies, which suck dry our sports funding and greater accountability.
	The funding of sport in this country is a total mess. The Government have had eight years in which to sort out the national administration of sport to their liking. In my view, they have achieved remarkably little. The negative aspects are more bureaucracy, fewer playing fields—mostly sold off by Labour-controlled local authorities, as they were in our day—less money at the coal face in real terms and, finally, a stealth tax on community sports clubs through payment of rates and licensing fees.
	The biggest disaster of all, which has already been mentioned, is that there is less National Lottery money available for sport, thanks to the Government's continuous smash-and-grab raids on the lottery proposed in the Bill currently in the other place, where it has had its Second Reading.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate which has covered every conceivable dimension of sport and almost all sports. Our gratitude is due to my noble friend Lord Pendry for introducing this debate on the basis of his very long experience of promoting policies in this area.
	This is a very challenging time for sport. The enhanced expectations of our nation are that expenditure on sport produces more effective performance. I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and will seek to answer some of them. But would this Government be criticised more if they were not spending two-and-a-half times the amount on sport which the previous Government spent in 1997?
	I hear what the noble Lord says about the problems of structure. We all recognise that there is complexity and I shall be identifying the way in which we are cutting through some it and guaranteeing that resources hit the target. However, I will not accept from the Opposition that somehow this commitment to extra expenditure on sport is misplaced. I do not see how, in any other walk of life, we can expect improved performance without increased resources, and I do not see that it is true of sport.
	So I make no apology for the fact that we are increasing our expenditure on sport. Nor do I worry unduly about criticisms of certain aspects of the policy on school playing fields. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Monro, said. It was during his administration and, to a degree, on his watch as Minister for Sport—although I know that the Minister for Sport is not directly responsible for school playing fields—that the problem with selling off school playing fields reached crisis point. In 1997, we as a Government committed ourselves to introducing legislation which tightened up the procedures considerably and ensured that school playing fields would not be sold except in the most exceptional circumstances.
	Such exceptional circumstances mean that all-weather pitches or interior facilities are superior to the retention of outdoor playing fields, with all the weaknesses they sometimes demonstrate of "unplayability" at certain times. Where facilities are enhanced by the provision of improved indoor facilities, there can be a case for the sale of the playing fields. However, that process which went on for two decades under the previous administration has largely been brought to a halt by this Administration. That is our commitment.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says; indeed, there is some justice in it. But is any structure envisaged whereby if a school does not need its playing fields and other people do, they can try and defend keeping them? I have asked this question time and time again, because we do not seem to be talking to each other. I have not heard an answer about it from anybody.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. He is absolutely right that we cannot afford to under-use educational facilities because the wider community can benefit from them. But the advantage of the commitment to extend the school day is the greater use of such facilities. It enhances the possibility of increasing young people's participation in sport and brings a community dimension to educational facilities of the greatest significance.
	Of course I am cognisant of the noble Lord's point. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Giddens referred to Cambridge where the educational sector can be enormously resource-rich, while the wider community surrounding it is relatively resource-poor. We need to address those issues and the facilities available. There is no doubt that it is necessary to have a strategy for encouraging commitment, interest and the value of sport. That is why we make no bones about putting a great deal of emphasis on sport for young people. Sport can indeed transform the lives of young people by developing their self-discipline, motivation, team-working skills and self-confidence.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to team sports and of course we recognise their value. We are introducing schemes for team management and in particular for sports competitions to encourage schools to compete in team games. We recognise the benefits that derive from them for those who wish to participate.
	I accept entirely the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He gave a graphic illustration of an exceptional and outstanding case; the transformation of Geoff Thompson's life by the development of a skill in sport. Everybody in this House can testify to the fact that they know the transformational qualities of sport. We must provide such opportunities for people, not least because they tackle a range of other problems.
	We can improve social inclusiveness. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and my noble friend Lord Giddens said that our health policy, concerned with reducing levels of obesity, needs to draw upon sporting participation. There is a clear link between encouraging young people at school to participate in sport and reducing the levels of obesity present in that group—they are certainly present in our adult population. We need to inculcate good habits early in life. That is a key challenge to which we are committed.
	We intend that by 2010 all children will be offered at least four hours of sport every week. This will consist of two hours of high-quality PE and sport at school and, in addition, the opportunity for at least a further two to three hours beyond the school day, delivered by a range of school, community and club providers.
	I accept that we need to recognise the beneficial effects which sport has on being able to call upon a high level of voluntary support and commitment. It is one of the areas of our national life in which we should delight; we all know of many members of our community who devote a great deal of their spare time to the work of their sports clubs, perhaps long after their own sporting careers might have ended. In some cases, they may not have had a sporting career but are drawn to and interested in developing a sport for others. That voluntary commitment is a resource that we ought to treasure, and we ought to recognise that it brings enormous benefits to the nation. That is why we are concerned to develop club links.
	My noble friend Lady Billingham emphasised the issue with regard to tennis. In tennis and a range of other sports, we need to build up links between schools and clubs and encourage progression from school to club. We must make sure that clubs are interested in what is provided in schools and enhance the facilities and opportunities that exist in the schools. In that context, I mention the Football Foundation, of which my noble friend Lord Pendry is president and which my noble friend Lord Giddens has, he said today, just joined. The Football Foundation is an important model for the way in which clubs can be encouraged to relate to the community and develop interest, support and commitment. We all recognise that football clubs, above all, have the added glamour of a sport that, in television terms, has the most outstanding appeal.
	Football has played its part, but our other major team sports, such as cricket, tennis and rugby, need to follow. We are prepared to back that with resources. We are putting an extra £35 million into the Football Foundation so that it can continue the good work, and we want other sports to recognise the enormous advantages of following that model. It means that we can ensure that young people receive improved coaching support, beyond that which they are likely to be able to obtain in the school itself, and it forges a crucial link between school and club, helping to tackle an issue of which we are all fearful and which we all acknowledge to be one of our worst problems. Participation in school sport may be lower than we want it to be, but we can adopt a strategy to improve that position in schools. However, it is the drop-out rate that is such a worrying factor. Often, the moment that young people leave educational institutions, they are lost to the world of sport and therefore do not develop their own health or create for wider society the benefits that sport brings.
	I do not think that anyone expressed doubt in any of the many powerful contributions that have been to the debate about the transformational potential of sport and the way in which it can enhance people's lives. That means that we must get past the barriers that exist, including the much lower rate of participation in sport among girls and women. We must recognise that that section of the community will need the question of the sporting provision that is made for it to be addressed more significantly.
	My noble friend Lord Pendry was kind enough to refer to the programme in Oldham that gives deprived youngsters access to football coaching and other footballing opportunities. The issue in Oldham is not just deprivation measured in economic terms; it is deprivation in ethnic terms, too. British football has enhanced opportunities for young people and has brought out some significant stars from the Afro-Caribbean community; one can scarcely think of a major side in Britain that does not have a black player. However, given the large Asian community that we have, one must ask, "Where are the Asian players?". Where has there been the stimulus to bring Asian groups into the sport?
	That feature is even more noticeable in other sports. Cricket is a great love of mine, and we all know the talent of the Asian countries in that sport. However, we have been relatively slow in this country to tap into the rich resource that we have of young people who could be great exponents of the game but have been deprived of resources or have been frustrated by the fact that the clubs do not relate closely enough to the schools, so that young people cannot avail themselves of club facilities. That is an important dimension of the targets that sport has to meet.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we must attack the issue of participation by girls and women in sport, but I want to ally it to the question of deprivation in the ethnic communities with regard to sport and the extent to which our whole community would be greatly enriched if we made progress in that area, too.
	Reference has been made to limited participation. When we came to power, we had few robust statistics on participation in sport. I do not take any great pride in the fact that it took us several years to make progress on collecting the essential building blocks of policy: effective and accurate data on the problem. It was not until the health survey in England in 2002–03 that we were able to establish that only 32 per cent of adults in England undertook at least 30 minutes of moderate physical activity on five or more days of the week; that only 21 per cent of adults participated in sport at least three times a week; and that only 43 per cent of adults participated in active sport at least 12 times a year. That is a poor base for a healthy, committed and participative society. That is why we are concerned to spend the money that, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, fears, we may be spending too slowly. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, may have heard my noble friend Lord Puttnam, as he was closing the previous debate, say that one of the glories about expenditure on the arts from the lottery fund in this country is the range of projects that have not a breath of scandal because of the effective allocation of money and guaranteed security in the use of resources.
	My department takes pride in that and we intend to operate the same degree of rigour with regard to both lottery funds and public expenditure from the taxpayer for sport. It is important that, when such initiatives are established, we have clear scrutiny to ensure that they are effective. That is why I make no bones about the fact that in crucial areas we are still involved in learning from the experience of developments in sport that we have initiated since 1997, but now have a blueprint for progress in both national and community sport throughout the country in succeeding years.
	I also emphasise that we recognise the issue of the disabled. There is no doubt that the great breakthrough for the disabled in sport has been the development of the Paralympic Games. Britain came second in the medals table in the Sydney Olympics. We achieved the same level in Athens and I assure the House that we intend to ensure that resources are available and encouragement given to our disabled athletes to ensure that in the next Olympics we will reach the same level of performance. That area is a matter for collective pride. Our society has made considerable progress, although I always recognise the enormous need to guard against complacency.
	In talking about the Paralympic Games, I also recognise the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran; namely, that, in the four short weeks until the decision on 6 July, a great deal of national sport will be related to the Olympic bid. We hope for success. I recognise the chiding from the Opposition about the slow start, but we are more interested in the results that have been achieved at the crucial time. I think it will be recognised that the final bid as presented puts us in a very healthy position. None of us knows what will be the eventual outcome, but we know that among all the extolling of the virtues of sport, certainly by politicians but even by leading figures in our society outside the world of politics, nothing stimulates interest in sport more than the glamour of dramatic success. That is why Kelly Holmes became not just a household name but an enormous stimulus to us all.
	I want us to build on the achievements of the past, recognising that sport can provide role models. I am all too conscious of the fact that there can also be unfortunate role models in sport when young people at high levels do not conduct themselves in the way that we would all wish, but we recognise that the vast majority of our leading sportsmen and women set very high standards. We need those models in society to encourage others. That is why I was enormously pleased by the approach of my noble friend Lord Carter in his crucial role through the body that he chairs. He recognises that there is cause for optimism in the strategies being pursued to achieve higher levels than we have previously been able to achieve not just in participation but in achievement.
	The attitude that has united us on all sides in this debate—I recognise that justified criticism has been made in certain areas—is that we recognise what capacity sport has to inspire people and bring out the very best in them in every way, not just in sporting excellence but to tackle the crucial problem of the level of the nation's health; and to give young people confidence, because they are engaged in worthwhile pursuits rather than anti-social ones, into which some will fall unless suitably inspired by other models.
	The Government are making considerable progress. There is no room for complacency, but we may be holding this debate in advance of a very significant summer for British sport. The important thing is that we must enhance our performance in the future in any case.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I congratulate all noble Lords on their contributions to this worthwhile debate. Because of the time, I will not have an opportunity to congratulate each and every one. I thank my noble friend Lord Evans for steering me to speak from a microphone. I have always spoken from that place and I have wondered often why people had not picked up my pearls of wisdom. So, from now on, noble Lords will have a boring time listening to my speeches.
	I thought that my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was rather negative and disappointed me somewhat with the tone of his speech, but I agree with him on the selling off of playing fields. I must say that I am a bit guilty because I wrote the part of Labour's manifesto that said "You sold off 5,000 and we wouldn't do anything of the kind". As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made clear, it is not quite as simple as that. Under-used playing fields have been replaced by well-used playing fields. We now see youngsters playing sport, often under floodlights, where they would not have been able to on normal pitches. I got the balance wrong when I wrote that, and I apologise to everyone who believed every word I said on that occasion—with or without a microphone. However, I would like the Sports Council to be more transparent about where we are at on that issue, because it is very important.
	I welcome my noble friend Lord Giddens to the Football Foundation. He referred to the lack of women's and girls' participation in sport, but he will find that there is a success story at the foundation. The fastest-growing sport in the country is women's football. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to contribute to that at the foundation.
	Irrespective of party, in this House there is a great love of sport. I thank the Minister for his wind-up speech. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [HL]

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Looking round this not very crowded and soon to be probably rather empty Chamber, the effect of moving debate day to Thursday becomes very obvious. Last business on a Thursday is about the worst slot it is possible to have, but it was the earliest that I could get. However, I am not dismayed.
	I introduced this Bill for the first time in this House in November 2003. At Second Reading on 17 December, six noble Lords spoke in support, only one of whom is here today; and three against, only one of whom is here today. It was passed unamended in January 2004, after which it languished, forgotten, in another place.
	For 62 years I lived two miles from Fraserburgh, once one of the biggest and most prosperous fishing ports in the country, founded more than 400 years ago by my ancestor. The prosperity of Fraserburgh is very dear to my heart. I have witnessed with sorrow the decline of the fishing industry on which it depends.
	The common fisheries policy, after years of failure to achieve sustainable management of European fisheries, was due for substantial overhaul by December 2002. A promising package of proposals, adopted by the Commission in May 2002, was wrecked by decisions taken by the Council in December 2002 as a result of pressure from certain interested member states.
	For many years, cod and hake stocks have been falling to dangerously low levels. The measures agreed by the Council to protect them have been totally inadequate. There was little reason to suppose that the story would be any different in December 2003. It was not. Cod boats were still allowed 15 days a month and haddock and prawn quotas were increased to compensate.
	In December 2004, following the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report, Turning the Tide, a little more was done, but not much. Days at sea for cod boats were reduced by one, except where they use 120mm or larger net mesh, as most of our boats do, for which they were not reduced.
	Regional advisory councils, such as our North Sea one, were to be in place for all regions by June 2005. When he winds up, perhaps the Minister will tell us whether they are or not. From what I have been reading in the House of Commons committee report, The Future for UK Fishing, published in March, I think that they are not. But over the years it has been the same old story of too little too late. Not much has changed in the past 18 months.
	What I found particularly unsatisfactory were the words of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on the subject of the 2004 negotiations with the European Commission:
	"Delicate negotiations were necessary to achieve a sensible outcome for the industry and a face saving formula for the Commission".
	The whole concept of having to save the face of the Commission being a consideration in negotiations of such importance, both to our fisheries and to the future of cod stocks, is to me just one more excellent reason for getting rid of the Commission and running our own fisheries.
	Total allowable catches, which are still with us, are a very inefficient method of controlling the quantity of fish caught so far as conservation is concerned. They lead to the wicked practice of discarding; that is, throwing overboard to die fish caught over and above the permitted quota and, worse than that, young, undersized fish which are unmarketable and should not be caught at all, but left in the sea to grow to maturity. The Dutch and French boats are far worse culprits than ours. Even though the discarded fish do not necessarily go to waste since they will be eaten by the sea's scavengers, such as cod at the best and predatory birds such as skuas at the worst, it is no way to conserve fish stocks. But what I do not see is how discarding can be stopped as long as we have the TAC and quota system. I do not think it can, and the Commons committee in its report to which I referred earlier appears, on pages 34 and 35, to agree.
	Most important of all in the long term so far as effort reduction is concerned, and more effective than days-at-sea limitation, is the decommissioning of a proportion of the existing European fishing fleet. About 60 per cent of the Scottish fleet has already been decommissioned, but so far such decommissioning as has been done by the rest of the European Union fleet has been largely negated by the building and licensing of new, bigger and better boats with the help of EU grants. That has got to stop, but I do not believe that the common fisheries policy will ever stop it, and therefore I think it essential that we take our fisheries out of the CFP.
	Moreover, since one of the recommendations made in the report, Turning the Tide, on the impact of fisheries on the marine environment is that 30 per cent of the fishing grounds in British waters should be closed to all commercial fishing, although I do not know for how long, I think the time has come to preserve the remaining grounds to our own UK, and particularly Scottish, fishermen who mostly do not want to fish in the Bay of Biscay, the Atlantic or the Mediterranean, which are the traditional fishing grounds of the French and Spanish boats. The common fisheries policy has never been of any benefit to this country. Joining it was the price we paid to join the European Union. It has not been worth it. Sometimes I wonder whether joining the European Union has been worth it, and I am not alone.
	At the end of the day we in this country have a far greater interest in the sound management of our fish stocks than do other member states which fish our waters, and are anxious to continue doing so because 70 per cent of the European Union fish stocks are in our waters. It is the living of our fishermen, and that of their children and grandchildren, which is at stake. As the Cod Crusaders, a pressure group formed by two wives of Fraserburgh fishermen, have said:
	"The EU Common Fisheries Policy has failed to conserve fish stocks. It has caused untold hardship for fishermen and their local communities and industries. That policy cannot be reformed. The EU nation states must regain control of their own waters rather than the competence for fisheries remaining with Brussels. That has not worked. It has been proved to be ineffective and inadequate in the conservation and management of fish resources. It has resulted in bankruptcies, the uprooting of individuals and families, the destruction of thriving communities with centuries-old cultural traditions, and communal lives".
	If the decision about who fished our waters was ours alone, our fishermen would fare much better. That is the reason for this Bill.
	Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power by affirmative order to withdraw from the common fisheries policy on such a date as he shall determine, regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.
	Clause 2 amends the Fishery Limits Act 1976 so that foreign fishing boats not registered in a country with a fisheries agreement with the United Kingdom would be forbidden to enter United Kingdom fisheries limits. Member countries of the European Union are specifically forbidden to fish within fishery limits unless their respective countries are designated access under the 1976 Act. No country would be so designated unless both reciprocal rights to fish in their waters are granted to UK fishing boats, and they observe the same or more stringent conservation measures as those applied within British fishery limits.
	Provision is also made in this clause for a licensing regime for fishing boats within British fishery limits; for penalties for unlicensed fishing; for the landing in the UK, Isle of Man or the Channel Islands of fish caught within British waters, or for their being reported to Ministers and available for inspection if landed elsewhere; for the conduct of relations with the Faeroe Islands, Iceland, Ireland and Norway with regard to fisheries; for the use of statutory instruments relating to the fisheries regime; and for the taking of the devolution of powers into account.
	Clause 3 makes financial provision for any expenditure of the Secretary of State consequent upon the Act. Clause 4 concerns the citation, extent and commencement date. The Bill will extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.
	This is an enabling Bill. It does not take the United Kingdom out of the common fisheries policy. It merely enables the Secretary of State to make an order to do so—an order that will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. What I hope the Bill will do is to send a very clear signal to the Council of Ministers and the Commission that people in this country are getting very fed up. By so doing, it will give the Minister responsible for negotiations with the Council a stronger hand to play.
	Our Ministers try very hard, but they are agriculture Ministers and even if any of them know anything about agriculture, that does not necessarily mean that they know about fishing. Any help or ammunition that we can give them we should give unstintingly. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.)

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I had better start by declaring an interest: I have salmon netting rights on the River Forth. That said, I am glad that my noble kinsman Lady Saltoun of Abernethy has brought forward another Bill seeking to address the problems of the control of the British fishery and the imbalance in the common fisheries policy, and, in so doing, has given us the chance to debate these issues for the overall management of the North Atlantic fishery. I will muse on my approach to the Scottish Fishery.
	I need to set out my approval of the European Union. I am in favour of it because it has kept the peace in Europe for 60 years, with the obvious exception of the Balkans. I am not at all surprised by the enthusiasm of countries previously behind the Iron Curtain to join and to do so both for economic and defence reasons. That said, we must accept that the British and Scottish fisheries were, as my noble kinsman has already said, largely given away in the EEC entry negotiations. In simple terms, the fishery in Scotland was very significant to the small country that is Scotland, but insignificant to the much larger state, the United Kingdom.
	That parallels the approach taken by the United Kingdom Government to North Sea oil revenues. A prudent, full-autonomy Scotland should have created an endowment fund similar to that of Norway. And yes, I do concede that some Scottish politicians might well have spent it there and then instead. Hindsight is great and even better is counter-factual hindsight.
	The case for reduction in fishing in the North Atlantic is well made. That can be seen in those areas administered by Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland and Greenland. Is it a real surprise that European Union and, hence, common fisheries policy membership has been rejected in Norway and Iceland? Is it not interesting that two devolved areas of Denmark are not in the European Union, despite Denmark joining at the same time as the United Kingdom? The Faeroes voted not to join and the Greenlanders were compensated by the European Union when they voted to leave the European Union.
	What this means, to me at least, is that devolved areas of European Union members are allowed to withdraw from the European Union and/or, presumably, the common fisheries policy, or indeed not to join when the senior partner joins. That may be good news for those who would seek for the devolved Scotland to leave the common fisheries policy, while those seeking full autonomy for Scotland—with UN, NATO and EU member status—would have the opportunity completely to renegotiate participation in the common fisheries policy. Since the rejoining package would presumably, and I hope, be put to a Scottish referendum, there would be greater control of the fishery, at least at the outset; or else, there is membership of the EEA to consider.
	Sea fishing is a long-standing tradition, giving economic activity to many remote areas. The product is a necessary part of the life of the people. The conservation of the fishery was achieved in the past by smaller boats and their limited range, which have dramatically increased in capacity over the years as new technologies have evolved. Now there is a continuing need for catch-limitation measures. The question is, how should this be divided up among the fishermen? The answer is that a greater balance of the fishing should be undertaken by local boats. Further to that, the conservation management should be repatriated to the nearest country.
	In conclusion, I wish my noble kinswoman well with her Bill. I shall be interested to hear the approach taken by my noble friend and by the Minister.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was very interested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and his reasons for supporting the European Union—which, he said, had kept the peace since 1945. That simply is not the case. The European Union was not formed until 1992 and it is NATO that has kept the peace in Europe since 1945. The only people who dealt with the Russian threat when it blockaded Berlin was the United States and the British, with just a little help from France. The Common Market, or the EEC, had not even been thought of, let alone formed, by then.
	After that little diversion, I should now like to congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on her persistence in this matter. Her previous Bill was agreed by this House without any difficulty at all but, as in so many cases, it got stalled in the House of Commons. But there is no reason why it should get stalled in the House of Commons this time. I hope that this House will give it an unopposed Second Reading today and that it will again proceed through all its further stages so that we can send it to the House of Commons. We have a Session of 18 months, so there will be no excuse of shortage of time in the House of Commons—or of lack of opportunity, since I believe that somebody there is already prepared to take it up and take it through the House of Commons if she should get the chance. Indeed, the composition of the Commons itself has changed; it may be that it is going to get a better hearing and a better approach than it would have done had we not had the election in May. So I hope that at this particular time, this particular Bill will reach the statute book; it has a better chance of doing so than the previous Bill that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was good enough to bring to us.
	I am not going to go into all the minute detail. The noble Lady has given us many reasons why we should repatriate the fishing policy, including the absurd discard system; the reduction of fleets, not only in Scotland but in the rest of the country; and, indeed, the criminalisation of many of our fisherman for doing very little wrong, and the amounts of money that can put them out of business. That all shows that something is radically wrong and has been wrong for a very long time. Indeed, the issue will not go away.
	I remember taking part in a debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on 14 February 1996. That is a long time ago—nine years ago—and we are still talking about the iniquities of the common fisheries policy. At that time, there was a full-blown crisis facing the fishing industry. British waters were then being over-fished by foreign fleets; British fishermen were being prevented from going to sea; they were burning their boats in protest and also burning the European flag. They were flying instead the Canadian flag and feting the Canadian High Commissioner as a great hero, because the Canadians had stood up to other people who were over-fishing their waters.
	This is a very longstanding problem—and what has changed? Fishing is still in crisis. Having a fishing policy run by 15 countries has proved disastrous; one run by 25 countries is likely to turn into a catastrophe. Since the CFP has failed miserably to protect and further Britain's fishing industry and, at the same time, failed to conserve stocks of fish, it is surely time for the return of fishing policy to Britain—and indeed to the other nations of the European Union. It could hardly do any further damage to our fishing industry if that happened. A properly managed and policed policy would give better opportunities to our fishermen and better conserved stocks in British waters.
	When the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, introduced her Bill on 18 May, she could not in any way foresee the climactic events that were to overtake the European Union at the end of May and beginning of June, when the French and Dutch people voted against the constitution—a document that would have entrenched the common fisheries policy, in Article 1.14. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is very able but I do not think that she has the power of foresight. Indeed, I do not think that many of us have.
	In my view current events have created a new opportunity to make the case for bringing powers back to the nation state, and among them the common fisheries policy. The Prime Minister himself has now realised that the common agricultural policy has to be reformed. Apparently, there will be a big debate about it this weekend. He believes that it should be reformed out of existence, so that it no longer exists. He is insisting on that before we give up our so-called rebate. He clearly does not believe that such an eventuality of withdrawing from the CAP is impossible for agriculture. So why should that not be the case for fishing as well, where the common fisheries policy so damages us and costs our country and our fishermen a good deal in lost revenue?
	I am glad to say that the Conservative Party has already adopted a position of support for the return of fisheries policy to the nation states. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will confirm that this afternoon from the Opposition Front Bench. The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party also seems to be warming to the idea of powers being returned to the nation states, so all the omens for this Bill are good. The Prime Minister could be persuaded to support it. The Official Opposition are already in favour of withdrawal from the CFP. I hope that it is not impossible—we shall hear in a moment the speech of the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches—that the Liberal Democrat Party will also support such a policy.
	As I say, I hope that the omens are good for an all-party agreement to support this Bill and to get the common fisheries policy returned to where it should never have left; that is, under the control of the British Government and, ultimately, the British people. Therefore, I support the Bill. I hope that it is given a Second Reading today and that it passes quickly through its further stages. As I say, that will give the House of Commons plenty of time to debate the Bill and, I hope, pass it into law.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I support the Bill which my noble friend Lady Saltoun so elegantly moved a few moments ago. As she said, the Bill in its main thrust gives the Secretary of State the option to withdraw from the common fisheries policy by obtaining parliamentary consent to an order laid before both Houses.
	The failure of the common fisheries policy to preserve stocks and curb illegal fishing has done untold damage to what was once one of the most prolific fishing areas in the world, particularly the North Sea. It is right that we should now start to move in the direction of regaining control over fishing in our own coastal waters. As my noble friend said, the quota system has been a disaster. More fish are discarded dead into the sea than are landed. What an appalling waste. Such a practice was certainly illegal in Norway a few years ago and I presume that that is still the case.
	As regards illegal fishing, my noble friend mentioned the taking of underweight fish through using small-mesh nets. I quote a recent example off Rockall when Scottish fishery inspectors boarded 10 large Russian trawlers. Each was found to be carrying between 200 and 400 tonnes of haddock on board, whereas Brussels allows Scottish boats to catch only 562 tonnes a year. The Russians were using minute nets of only 50 millimetre mesh, allowing nothing to escape. It is not just, as my noble friend said, the Spaniards and French and possibly the Belgians and the Dutch who are guilty of using smaller-mesh nets. There are others as well who are causing untold damage.
	Most UK fishermen, certainly in the south-west where I live, want to see a dramatic shift in the way in which fisheries are managed, balancing the needs of the environment, the regional economies, and the local communities. In the south-west we are somewhat better off than the North Sea, because the warmth of the Gulf Stream allows a much greater variety of species. The situation is not helped by the practice of trading quotas, where sometimes a great deal of money can be involved and retired fishermen are in effect living off their quotas. That is proving highly detrimental to the smaller fishermen and is helping the larger operators to get bigger. There is also a distinct element of greed involved, and where there is greed there is also an incentive to cut corners and—to use a nautical expression—to sail close to the wind as far as regulations are concerned.
	I am wholly against the extension of the quota trading scheme into individual transferable quotas, which is being considered at the moment, and which would give legal entitlement to the quota and could lead to them becoming international transferable quotas, which could be sold to fishermen from other countries that are at present barred from fishing in certain of our areas, such as the North Sea.
	Without a doubt, the situation is a mess, and highly over-bureaucratic. I shall just give another small example of two lifetime fishermen from Scarborough who announced that they are giving up. They had been out at sea for 36 hours with only two hours' sleep. Before coming in, they omitted to telephone to let the inspectors know that they were coming in. Under EC rules if you are carrying more than a tonne of cod you must give a telephone warning. The inspectors were waiting for them on the quay and although the catch was completely legal, they had not completed their extensive ministry paperwork and they were fined £5,000. For them, that was the end. That is a disgrace. It also has the effect—especially where smaller, local communities are concerned—of dissuading any youngster who might be attracted to going into the fishing business from doing so. That is another great problem from all this mess and over-bureaucracy; younger people are simply not looking to go into the fishing industry. That is a great mistake.
	Something must be done if our local fishing communities are not to become merely fishing theme parks so that tourists can go and see what the fishing industry was once like. That is beginning to happen more and more to offset local economic decline. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was quite right just now in saying that my noble friend's Bill is well timed in view of the recent rejection of the EU constitution by France and Holland, which has thrown things into confusion. As we all know, confusion can lead to unexpected events. I have heard talk among several of my friends in Europe recently that Germany might seize the opportunity to withdraw from the euro. We cannot tell what will happen, and for that reason it is right that we should put down a marker, which this Bill does, and I support it.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I certainly congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, on her persistence in bringing forward this Bill. She does address a serious issue.
	I agree with her on a few points, the first of which is the effect of moving the debate day to Thursday. Secondly, over the years the Commission has dragged its feet disgracefully, and the Council has been completely hopeless in putting political expediency before any sort of consideration of conservation of fish stocks. Also, the total allowable catch system has proved a disastrous way of addressing the conservation of fish.
	Finally, I would agree with her that effort reduction is part of the way forward. But I am afraid that there my agreement with her must end, because although her Bill is trying to address a serious issue times have moved on and it is no longer the way in which we can address the conservation of our marine environment, which includes the conservation of our fish stocks and ensuring the livelihood of some fishermen in a fishing community.
	The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report of December 2004, Turning the Tide, made it clear that all its recommendations, which merit being adopted en bloc by the Government, leave a clear framework for a way forward. It makes it clear that action needs to be taken across EU waters at EU level and equally in our UK waters. However it makes no suggestion—indeed, it refutes the suggestion—that that should be done by withdrawal from the EU.
	There are a couple of reasons why we need to work within the framework of a much wider geographical area than our own. First, species move across seas and oceans and they do not pay any attention to national boundaries; secondly, as I understand from the scientists involved, there is an unprecedented movement of species due to climate change. The fairly steady pattern in where species live, which applied perhaps 20 years ago, no longer applies.
	It is clear that we need to develop healthy marine ecosystems, both in our UK waters and in EU waters. The EU is about to publish, in July, a marine thematic strategy. It will be a first for the European Union in that it will come from the Environment Directorate and will therefore have a much greater emphasis on conservation than the fisheries strategies, which always had a more commercial angle.
	Conservation and developing a healthy ecosystem are the first steps in achieving what the noble Lady wants to achieve: to create a livelihood for the fishing communities. If we continue down the road that we are on, even if we repatriated our fisheries waters I do not believe—for a couple of reasons that I will set out in a moment—that it would make a great difference. The UK Government are intending to introduce a marine Bill. I hope that the Minister will tell me that that is under way and that the draft Bill will be published shortly, because it is extremely urgent.
	It is incredible that we have no planning system for what happens in marine areas, so that what may be valuable spawning grounds within UK waters may be subject to gravel extraction, all sorts of dredging and other activities that damage the fish stocks. Now that the pilot for that type of approach has been completed in the Irish Sea, the Government should speed up their introduction of the marine Bill. Even if it is imperfect—as I am sure we will accuse it of being from time to time—I would welcome its early introduction.
	Another way forward of which I am sure the noble Lady is aware—it has been under way for a while now in Scotland—is the approach taken by Ross Finnie, the Scotland fisheries Minister, who is trying to deliver genuine regional management of the fishing stocks there where regional advisory councils are given genuine powers over managing fish stocks on the basis of scientific evidence. They are making definite progress—albeit slow progress—in that regard.
	Perhaps the first measure of success, beyond the fact that the North Sea Regional Advisory Council has been set up and that decisions are increasingly taken on the basis of scientific evidence rather than political expediency, is the recent example of the European Commission banning sand eel fishing in the North Sea due to dangerously low stock levels. When sand-eel fishing falls to low levels, it is a barometer of the health of an awful lot of other fish stocks, because of their place in the food chain.
	A number of practices still go on that are extremely detrimental in a way that we probably have not begun to understand yet, but they have been explained well in Turning the Tide. The greatest such practice is bottom-trawling, which will have to be addressed. I congratulate the fishermen from Looe in Cornwall who took the initiative to go back to hand-line fishing for mackerel, and now market and label their produce as such. That is ecologically far more sound.
	The next thing at which the Government should look seriously is extending the experiment taking place round Lundy of the no-take zone, which is yielding very promising results in the way that fish stocks can regenerate quickly. When I was there last weekend, I noticed that the fish stocks might have regenerated particularly fast, because there was a little ring of trawlers just beyond the no-take zone. That tends to suggest an increase.
	I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Greenway. It is hard to speak against fishermen for all the reasons of political expediency, and because they have a wonderful tradition of doing a brave job. The job appeals to us not only because they bring home produce that we like, but because of our hunter-gatherer instinct. However, they should be prosecuted when they do things that are, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, a little wrong. That is a bit like being a little pregnant. You are either doing something that is against the law and wrong, or you are not. If we are seriously to conserve fish stocks and introduce ways of conserving fish, when people break they law they will have to be prosecuted, unfortunately. I support Defra in taking that action.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, of course people have to be prosecuted and punished if they break the law, but surely the fine of £5,000 for not filling in the appropriate forms is inordinate, bearing in mind that the fishermen had not exceeded their catches. They had simply forgotten to fill in the forms. Perhaps they had a difficult time at sea. A fine of £5,000 is swingeing for such a peccadillo.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the noble Lord chooses a good example, in the sense that it is hard to argue against that. However, I am particularly thinking of last week's issues, headlined in the Western Morning News, of the Cornish fishermen prosecuted for more significant and practical infringements. One of the biggest grumbles was that the offences were a couple of years old and that the prosecutions had taken some time.
	I am coming to the end of what is a reasonable time to speak at this point on a Thursday, so I shall mention briefly another couple of questions for the Minister. First, I hope that the UK Government, under the EU thematic strategy when it is published, will do something to address the way in which the European Union fleet predates on the rest of the world's ocean, particularly that of small, coastal and artisanal fisheries in the developing countries. All of this House would agree that it was disgraceful to move into those countries where food production was already a problem, to scoop up some of the very basic livelihood that their people have.
	My second point is on aquaculture. What are the Government doing about its environmental impact, much of which was outlined in the Royal Commission's report? I shall not go into that now.
	Lastly, I wish to underline the point that Charles Clover laid out so well in his excellent book The End of the Line. All of us as consumers are guilty—perhaps noble Lords particularly so, even when we eat in our own restaurant—of eating fish without recognising that some types, such as bass, are not sustainable. Bass fishing through pair trawling is a danger to dolphins. Also, should you order bass you would realise, given its size—no bigger than the piece of paper that I am holding—that they are caught before they can even spawn.
	We all have a responsibility as consumers to ensure that we do not eat too much fish. The Government also have a responsibility in that the Food Standards Agency recommends that we should eat more fish, and promotes the message that fish is healthy and good for children's brain development. Yesterday fish was mentioned as an antidote to colon cancer. The agency needs to assess the environmental impact of its suggestions. It should get together with the other agencies concerned with those issues to ensure that its suggestions are not as environmentally detrimental as they seem at present.
	I shall not vote against the Bill at Second Reading out of courtesy—it is a convention of the House that a Bill should have its Committee stage. But if my not voting against the Bill at any stage is taken as assent to it, I shall have to move to a vote.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, we might be few in number but we are high in quality. The Second Reading debate on the Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill, introduced by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, gives us an opportunity to discuss the common fisheries policy. The last time the Bill came before the House my noble friend Lady Wilcox spoke on our behalf. Unfortunately, she cannot be here today so I am very happy to step into her shoes and so do. My noble friend supported the Bill in principle on the previous occasion, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, knows well. She raised some important questions, which I shall reiterate, and which I hope the Minister will answer today.
	On listening to the clear introduction by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, of her Private Member's Bill, I am struck yet again by the sheer incompetence of the common fisheries policy to protect our fish stocks. A system that forces fishermen to throw back into the sea more dead fish than they land, that causes substantial degradation of the marine environment, and that has destroyed much of the fishing industry is a disgrace and must not be allowed to continue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was right to say that fishing is in crisis. The noble Lady is not alone in voicing those views. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, in Progress on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, 25th Report, Session 2002–03, noted that the CFP was due for a substantial overhaul. But the report added that the committee had,
	"no confidence that the new basic CFP Regulation agreed . . . will meet the objectives of sustainable fisheries and prevent irreversible decline of important stocks unless it is substantially improved".
	The Bill would not of itself take us out of the common fisheries policy and that aspect of the problem but it would give the Secretary of State powers to do so, as the noble Lady made clear.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said—it is always awful to follow him in that regard—even now, when the common agricultural policy agreements are being reconsidered, it seems the more incredible that one is not supposed to suggest a radical change to the common fisheries policies. We on these Benches wish to see the present system radically altered. To that end, my honourable friend Owen Paterson has spent many months visiting fishing industries within the United Kingdom and other countries to see how they organise their fish stocks. His visits to Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland, Canada and the United States have enabled him to produce a consultation document that we launched in January 2005.
	In presenting her case, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, drew our attention to some of the unacceptable practices that must be tackled if we are to reverse the devastation of our fish stocks. The use of total allowable catches, which is an inefficient system, results in the throwing away of immature fish and the landing of black fish. The wicked practice of discards continues. Boats are scrapped and replaced by more efficient ones, which, through new technical improvements, catch more fish than those that they replace. The practice of pair trawling catches dolphins and other cetaceans. The garnering of sand eels in the North Sea has taken some 750 tonnes each year and pulped them for oil and meal used in salmon farming. These practices should be ended.
	If Charles Clover's article in the Times on Thursday, 9 July 2005, is correct, it appears that Europe is expected shortly to ban sand eel fishing. On 17 December 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in col. 1273, stated:
	"Certainly, we need to improve enforcement and do something about discards. The new process for discards will help the situation".—[Official Report, 17/12/03; col. 1273.]
	What was that new process, when did it begin and what success has it achieved to date? What scientific research has been and is being undertaken by the UK or jointly by the EU truly to evaluate current fish stocks? Without accurate statistics, how on earth can effective planning be undertaken?
	I turn now to some of the thoughts that have been put forward by my party in our consultation document. We recognise that the common fisheries policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster—and it needs to be reformed. It is a 33-page consultation document. It is not finalised. If the Minister would like to have a copy of it at the end of the debate, I am more than willing to pass it to him—because what he and I and everyone in this House want is to improve the present totally unacceptable situation.
	In the document we maintain that fisheries cannot be managed successfully on a continental scale. They need local control. That is why Michael Howard has stated that the Conservatives will return our fisheries to national and local control and management. I shall highlight some of the issues that we wish to raise. We want the effort control to be based on days at sea, rather than fixed quotas. We want a ban on the discarding of commercial species. We want permanent closures for conservation. We want provision for temporary closures of fisheries. We would like to see the promotion of selection gear and technical controls. We would like rigorous definition of minimum commercial sizes and a ban on industrial fishing. We would like to see a prohibition on production subsidies and a zoning of fisheries. We would like to see registration of fishing vessels, skippers and senior crew members. We would like to see measures introduced to promote profitability rather than volume. At the end of the day, we want to see effective and fair enforcement for fishing throughout the area.
	Therefore, in essence, our policy is for national and local control. National government would set the strategic framework which would include priorities for the restoration of the marine environment and the rebuilding of our fishing industry. New local bodies will take day-to-day responsibility for managing their fisheries.
	In our consultation document we recognise the need for local government to set that strategic framework, but even within the UK the needs of fishermen vary. The needs of fishermen in Scotland vary from those further down on the east coast of England and they are certainly not necessarily the same as those in Fleetwood or the south-west, so how can one policy fit all?
	In addition to commercial fishing, we recognise the economic and social values of recreational fishing. There are 1 million recreational fishermen who generate some £1 billion worth of economic activity. We believe that whatever consultation the Government undertake, provision must be made to accommodate that sector and its views should be taken into account.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, quite rightly referred to the need for this draft marine Bill to be brought before us urgently. We have often spoken of this matter and we are in total agreement.
	I hope that in enlarging a little more on what my noble friend Lady Wilcox was able to say when the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, previously presented her Bill, I have underlined our desire to see a much more—aggressive is the wrong word—practical and determined stance taken by the Government.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bach, is very new to his brief, but I have a high regard for his ability in the offices that he has held previously. While he may be unable to answer some questions, I hope that he will take them away and return with some very robust answers. I am sure that, like us, he wishes to see a successful and profitable fishing industry, conserved not only for UK fishermen—first and foremost, it should be for UK fishermen—but also for EU fisheries as well.
	There may be finer details in the Bill with which the Minister will struggle to agree, but I hope that he will give it a fair wind and I hope that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is successful in getting it through this House and in it being presented in good time in the other place. I support the Bill.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for introducing the Second Reading of this Bill. I thank her for her support of British Ministers over the years in this area. I know that my honourable friend and colleague, Mr Ben Bradshaw, is a stalwart supporter of British fishing and those who work in the industry. He is the Minister for Fisheries in Defra at present.
	It is clear from this very good debate that some noble Lords see attractions in regaining unilateral control over the management of our fisheries and in replacing what are difficult negotiations in Brussels, in which we as a country participate every year to agree fishing opportunities for our fishermen.
	I acknowledge that the common fisheries policy has its flaws—of course it does—but that policy was reviewed by the Council of Ministers, as we have heard, during 2002 and the result was, we believe, a revised and much improved framework regulation. That new regulation includes a much more robust commitment from the Council of Ministers to conserve or, where necessary, recover fish stocks in accordance with scientific advice. It puts environmental considerations at the heart of the CFP and reiterates relative stability, the mechanism for dividing EU fishing opportunities among member states in accordance with their own historical fishing practices. It renews the rights of coastal member states out to 12 nautical miles. It also provides for the setting up of regional advisory councils to give fishermen and all parties with an interest in commercial fish stocks a more direct input into their management.
	The Government have misgivings about the approach adopted in the noble Lady's Bill with regard both to its legality and to the practicability of achieving its purported objectives, even if it was legally sound.
	I appreciate that under the terms of the Bill, any decision on whether to withdraw would be taken by both Houses. However, the Bill effectively recommends unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. That is impossible under EU law as it stands and therefore only achievable—if at all—through a complex series of negotiations with other member states. Such a renegotiation is not on the agenda and, even if it were, the chances of achieving the necessary unanimous agreement would be remote.
	The Bill seeks to take back UK control of fisheries within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. It would do that by giving the Fishery Limits Act 1976 priority over Community law, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972. It would restrict the licensing of fishing to UK vessels and those of other countries, where authorised, and require fish caught in UK waters to be landed in UK ports, except where otherwise agreed, under reciprocal agreements with third countries.
	Even if Parliament chose to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, in so far as it applies to fisheries, our treaty obligations would continue to apply. The UK would remain subject to the obligations it took on under the treaty, so the repeal would leave the UK in breach of the treaty and therefore of Community law. That would leave us open to infraction proceedings and, in the case of an adverse judgment in the European Court of Justice, daily fines. So the idea that there is some viable legislative approach that would spirit us out of the common fisheries policy is an illusion.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, will the Minister be referring to Greenland being allowed to leave the European Union because of unfairness towards its fishermen?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I was not going to refer to Greenland leaving the EU because of the unfairness to its fishermen. However, I am not sure of the relevance of that to the position in which the United Kingdom finds itself. I do not think that anyone in this debate is proposing—at least, nobody has said so—that the United Kingdom should leave the EU, however serious or otherwise the position on British fisheries may be.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, my point was that it was only the issue of the fishing that caused Greenland to leave. Therefore, unhappiness with the fishery position can be dealt with.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know whether Greenland broke its treaty obligations or negotiated them away. I do not think that the noble Earl is suggesting that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, however grave he feels the issues are.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister saying that, if Parliament repealed the relevant section of the 1972 Act, that repeal would not apply? Is he saying that the British Parliament is not able to recover a resource and a policy that it gave away through the 1972 Act? What would happen? Are we now saying that, even if the British Parliament decides that it no longer wishes to be part of a particular policy of the EU, it cannot do anything about it? That is a serious situation.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am saying that we could negotiate the policy away, if that were possible, within the EU. On the other hand, we could repeal the 1972 Act. The point that I am making—I do not think that it is seriously legally challenged—is that the treaty would subsist. If the treaty subsists, we either keep to it or we breach it. If we breach it, there are consequences, as there are for any country that breaches treaties. Although there are serious legal obstacles, they are not, in the Government's view, the key issue.
	The common fisheries policy exists because we share stocks and waters with other countries. Just a few moments ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, made the point that I am about to make: it is obvious that many commercial fish stocks do not remain static in our or anybody else's waters. They swim around; they do not respect national boundaries; they spawn in one place and move on to feed in another place; and they migrate, sometimes over long distances, during their lives. There are patterns of fishing going back over many years through which numerous countries exploit the different stocks. That means that we cannot conserve stocks by applying unilateral national measures. On the contrary, conservation can be achieved only through concerted management measures agreed among all the countries that exploit the stocks.
	If some magic wand could be waved to grant the noble Lady her wish and we found ourselves outside the CFP, we would immediately have to set up negotiations with the EU, the EU and Norway, the EU and Greenland, the EU and the Faroes to conclude arrangements that would cover precisely the same ground. Leaving the CFP would only create a necessity for us to negotiate a series of separate agreements that would probably be similar to the CFP but might be less in our interests than the current arrangements. We do not think that that would be a sensible or economical way of proceeding. Indeed, the truth is only too clear: the solution to the problem of an inadequate common fisheries policy is not to leave it but to ensure that the arrangements now in place work effectively and to negotiate improvements, where needed.
	Making progress within the framework of the policy is a frustrating and time-consuming business—I do not claim anything else—but it is the only way. I want to highlight the encouraging signs that there is a growing will among EU member states to remedy the shortcomings of the common fisheries policy. Since the reform in 2002, we have seen the creation of the first regional advisory council, the North Sea Regional Advisory Council, which involves the fishing industry and other stakeholders in decisions on fisheries matters. The noble Lady asked, I believe, about the regional advisory council. The first one was launched in Edinburgh last November and has, I am told, given good advice already on issues involving cod and plaice. Other regional advisory councils are due to be set up this year.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, as Defra is reviewing the position of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which, I believe, has £11.5 million a year to spend, will the Minister consider whether devolving that budget to the regional bodies would be a constructive thing to do? I do not expect him to answer at this moment, but I think that that would be a possibility.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I will take back the noble Baroness's point and I thank her for making it.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, does the Minister know whether the regional advisory councils, which are expected to be in place before the end of this year, will all be in the UK or will any of them be in other parts of Europe?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lady's question before I sit down. Another encouraging development is that the Commission has begun discussions earlier than ever before on the decisions that will need to be taken in December about fishing next year. We are also looking at ways of improving the decision-making process. During our presidency, which begins in a few weeks' time, we will be working to encourage those developments.
	As regards recent developments in the UK on the future management of our fisheries, there has been an encouraging reaction from those concerned to our engagement with them following the Net Benefits reports from the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit. The analysis in Net Benefits shows how the UK fishing industry could have a sustainable and profitable future and makes a number of recommendations on how to achieve that. It urges the four fisheries departments in the UK, and others who are involved, to get together to work out in detail how to bring that future about, which we have been doing.
	I am pleased that the discussions have been constructive. We are in the final stages of producing a government response, to be published very soon, which will set out how in partnership we propose to move to a better future. The recommendations in Net Benefits were presented in the context of the Strategy Unit's judgment that the CFP provides a robust process for taking fisheries management decisions and a clear mechanism for sharing fishing opportunities. Frankly, the quality of the decisions taken and the policies applied needs to be improved. In the light of the recommendations, our forward plans will include action to secure improvements in the operation of the common fisheries policy.
	The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked about regional advisory councils. They are not all in the UK. They cover all EU fisheries, including some in which we have limited interest, such as the Mediterranean Sea.
	To conclude, there is a lot for the UK to achieve to further the future of our fishing industry, but that can be achieved only from within the common fisheries policy and by addressing and being patient with the frustrations that the CFP poses. It would not do any service to those aims or to the Ministers and officials who have to pursue them to pull out of the CFP in the way that the Bill would allow.
	Of course, in the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned, the Government will not oppose Second Reading because convention says that we do not do so. But the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will know from what I have said that we cannot accept the Bill as it stands. We recognise the real concern shown around the House today. Once again, I thank the noble Lady for raising this topic.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, may I press the Minister on a particular question on which I thought that help might be at hand: the whole question of discards? I referred to the new process announced in December 2003. After all these months something should have happened on that. I hope that something might be forthcoming, but I realise that there are wider questions which he will want to consider. However, it is a fairly basic point.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not reply to the noble Baroness. There are many reasons for discards, several of which are quite complex. I am advised that the Commission has come forward with an action plan. A discards ban is one of the ideas in that plan, but we want to test out what works. I think that the noble Baroness also asked about scientific research. An annual scientific assessment of stocks is made which informs the decisions made on stock management.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government do not support the Bill. That means that they oppose it. However, the tradition is for the Government to remain neutral in Private Members' Bills and I hope that both he and the Government will hold to that.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make the position clear. I have expressed the Government's views on the matters which make up the Bill, but by not opposing it in my remarks today I am remaining neutral in the conventional way in which governments do for Private Members' Bills.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords, whether they supported me or not, who stayed late this afternoon and thus have helped to make this such a good debate. I shall study carefully what all of them have said.
	I should like to make one or two comments. My noble kinsman Lord Mar and Kellie particularly emphasised the trauma caused to the Scottish fishing industry. I say to him that fisheries in the rest of the UK are also suffering badly.
	My noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, had a little disagreement about the functions of the EU as regards keeping the peace in Europe since the Second World War. The EU was the dream of people who fought in the Second World War and, for some, in the First World War as well. Their dream was to set up an organisation that would prevent any further wars taking place in Europe. Long before we joined it, the EU did in fact contribute to that aim, as well as NATO.
	I was very interested in the speech of my noble friend Lord Greenway and I have learnt a good deal from it, as I have from the contributions made by all noble Lords. I say again that I am most grateful to them. In the mean time, I wish all a very happy weekend.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before six o'clock.